Re: Should MI be supported (was: Can MI be supported?)

[Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de>]

* Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this.  I personally find
> the mixin idiom to be more natural than the view conversion approach.

So do I.

> But Ada allows both, and in fact several other ways to code the same
> example, and we are talking about adding one more.

No. The discussion is about adding a high level abstraction which can be
implemented in any way.

> But this is how it should be.  Ada should allow you to express a model
> using whatever patterns are most appropriate.  If we disagree on which
> patterns to use, well that is a style issue, not something where there
> is a definite right or wrong.

Patterns or idioms usually point to a hole in the abstraction level of the
language.

> G�del's Proof basically says that any programming language must be either
> incomplete or inconsistant.

https://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/usenet/Fachbegriffe.der.Informatik.html#293

  Halting Problem
     After proofing the impossibility of the general case, the programmer
     denies to implement any possible solution for important, ordinary cases.