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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.snarked.org!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Text_IO, was: Re: Something I don't understand
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:01:45 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccha7u4v92.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <4a3e55f6-9f54-4084-9f37-96efd4b0d349@googlegroups.com>
 <ad687a22-84c1-4c7d-bf8d-023fda30d849@googlegroups.com>
 <e7a5d697-12d1-4150-b713-3ce1156f158d@googlegroups.com>
 <0b358700-871b-4603-addd-65e07c7d59e5@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc1tz3al9l.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <ldpv63$vc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <wcca9drdoc3.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <ldt0m5$2ad$1@dont-email.me>
 <bmetfvFp5prU1@mid.individual.net> <ldtjgk$o98$1@dont-email.me>
 <bmf9btFrpu3U1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1392847310 870 192.74.137.71 (19 Feb 2014 22:01:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:01:50 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Luj1DQ0aQ7bm6FAClnt+hiaz5KA=
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185009
Date: 2014-02-19T17:01:45-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:

> No, dynamic type safety is not fully "Ada type safe". Ada is (mainly)
> statically type safe; dynamism only enters in subtype safety.

Well, if you take the view that "types" are "those things that can be
checked statically", then all programming languages are statically type
safe, rendering the notion meaningless.  Even something like 'bash',
which has only one (static) type.  In this view, 'bash' does zero static
type checking, yet all the type checking it does is static.

In other words, the term "subtype" in Ada is a cheat, deliberately used
to enable bogus claims about static type safety in Ada, as if the
run-time checks associated with subtypes somehow don't count.

- Bob