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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4215feeab2a8154a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:24:17 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccocqhcfzi.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <wcc8whovk76.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <850893f5-46e5-443f-af0f-f16eef5cfa37@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
 <hm5885t02rttpp8lppg5gtib804at4tca8@4ax.com>
 <ea76ae4c-11c2-4986-ab72-78f5ece43a76@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
 <v7ha85hhe7d4npss2r4974s6kbv41jq1gh@4ax.com>
 <57766742-5e6e-4b68-8094-57db1fa8951d@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
 <2kra85p2lsrd7200mcfr9fn65s123468br@4ax.com>
 <625c577b-9097-4a8d-a9cb-dd986dd81f89@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
 <fhua85diml8s6bq53e6t6435j00of7kc3l@4ax.com>
 <d223de57-6494-4946-8382-68bb95bb340e@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <wcc7hx6utg7.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <776704ff-2531-47f7-8949-7cca4cf4b4f1@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
 <wcc8whmt49t.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <36e462fe-cb9b-4fd0-9c68-88b5e998e942@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1250346257 24868 192.74.137.71 (15 Aug 2009 14:24:17
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:24:17 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hkKuXD85ZYax/o8YGy0cUv9NeVk=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7816
Date: 2009-08-15T10:24:17-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

REH <spamjunk@stny.rr.com> writes:

> Thanks. I thought my Ada terminology might be wrong. I had it peer
> review by C++ experts, but not Ada. I used the term "ranged types." I
> thought I read later (here I think) that is technically not correct.

I don't think "ranged types" is wrong.  It's not what the Ada RM calls
them, but so what?  You're not writing the Ada RM, nor a
language-lawyerly article about Ada; you're writing an article
about how to do something Ada-like in C++, and in that context,
it's perfectly reasonable to use informal terminology.

I use the term "pointer" all the time to refer to things that point,
such as Ada access values.

- Bob