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: 103376,70414f56d810c10c X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.11.199 with SMTP id s7mr28972380pbb.5.1317137862366; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Path: lh7ni6040pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.news-service.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: discriminant questions Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:38:08 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <9f37b726-d80b-4d24-bf3f-28a14255f7fd@s20g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <14tiipigyejtc$.hyp7e82egqwq$.dlg@40tude.net> <34d856bd-19a3-4bbf-b9d8-c0f100000ef4@k7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> <1tpl2pc36ptr4$.txv4v3wmkjlm.dlg@40tude.net> <1malv6h6q31j3.uz9ws5j0glnm.dlg@40tude.net> <4e81a2f4$0$7624$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4e81e788$0$6542$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18171 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2011-09-27T17:38:08+02:00 List-Id: On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:11:03 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 27.09.11 14:14, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:18:28 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >> [...] > So you end up explaining tasks > and protected objects anyway. And you might be able to explain > why seemingly advantageous "primitives" like "concurrent" and > "lock" had been preferred to a library based approach. As another example take elliptic integral of the first kind: F(x,k). Why bother to with subprograms, accuracy of real types, real types themselves, approximation techniques for such a simple thing? The answer to your question was given by Occam 700 years ago. >> It is also interesting how non-implemented "patterns", and as I understand, >> your desire is to keep them such, could be tested in the field, before >> being incorporated into the language core? Was for example limited type >> return tested in the field? Accessibility rules? Anonymous access types? > > At Ada-auth, they usually say something about customer response to > implementation defined pragmas and such. Customer response to the language standard? Are you joking? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de