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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8077d2e20cde67b1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Modular types inside records
Date: 2000/10/24
Message-ID: <wcc1yx6qpy3.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 685248656
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <8FD47616EPablo@213.25.200.9> <8ss7fb$5c7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <8FD4BD4F4Pablo@213.25.200.9> <wccd7gr385o.fsf@world.std.com>
 <8FD6C49EFPablo@213.25.200.9>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-10-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

niewiap@widzew.net (Pawe� Niewiadomski) writes:

> I don't think that adding a couple of if statements makes the code more 
> readable.

Or a couple of "mod" operators.

>...  On the contrary:  if someone looks at the record and sees a 
> modular type, he says: OK, so I don't have to worry about constraint 
> errors; I can get down to the important stuff.

When I see a modular type, I say: OK, so I don't have to worry about
constraint errors; I have to worry about wrong answers.  Half :-).

>...  My implementations of the 
> empty and full functions are just one-line-long and add and remove 
> procedures each take up as much as five lines of code.  Imagine what they 
> would look like if you had to check for constraint errors every time.

I don't understand that -- you don't *check* for C_E, you write the code
so it doesn't cause C_E.

- Bob