From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9fb8e2af320d5b3e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Bus error
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <0367891DA5DA7E408D42A860FA002F44B0CC48@sma2901.cr.eurocopter.corp>
 <mailman.10.1183113484.1644.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <1l4yqvxoid4n1.1u8eo4oo8ml4m$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4685280c$0$14869$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:07:08 +0200
Message-ID: <tk9ak6o26vr7.15x8n04sjd359.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jun 2007 22:06:28 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: a1226a66.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=SO@=Tnec;]7i6K;>iZ]763ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1Fl8W>\BH3Y2o\dQ^dKRKa8DNcfSJ;bb[5IRnRBaCd<M>P3<eeRYmCE8n\dY5Ud?Ae4
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16345
Date: 2007-06-29T22:06:28+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:44:22 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:35:28 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
>> 
>>> in Ada 95 you could do
>>>
>>> 	X : T renames Factory;
>> 
>> Yes, you're right. It should be illegal. Semantically it is same as
>>
>>    X : Integer renames 1; -- Illegal
> 
> I don't think that renaming an object is the same as renaming
> a number literal because the literal isn't declared anywhere.
> Wheras I could say that a returned object is declared as part
> of the function declaration.

Oh, if that is a problem then take this instead:

    X : Integer renames -1; -- Still illegal, though not a literal

But clearly your argument is nonsensical, literal is a syntactic element,
of which semantics is as much object as any of any other expression. It
would be a very perverse idea to try to draw a line between literals and
non-literals. Note also that Ada's renaming has conceptually little to do
with objects. Consider:

   X : T;
   X : T renames X; -- Illegal

though the "object" is obviously same. Same object, same name, what was
wrong?

>>    function Very_Positive return Integer is
>>    begin
>>        return -1;
>>    end Very_Positive;
>> 
>>    Oops : Positive renames Very_Positive; -- This is OK!
> 
> So is
> 
>   if 42 not in Boolean'pos(false) .. Boolean'pos(true) then
>       raise Constraint_Error;
>   end if;

You missed the point. The renaming in my example shall *not* raise
Constraint_Error. It is a clear language design fault.

Renaming is completely broken in Ada. It creates new objects, it violates
contracts, it introduces names conflicts.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de