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: 103376,ec21c3c7cdc7ff3e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: private types
Date: 26 Mar 2006 11:32:28 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcczmjdw4ir.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <1142279908.327131.230200@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
 <hZrRf.3235$x94.1497@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <sa4k6axpj1y.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au>
 <f_qSf.8758$Jz4.2940@trnddc08> <wccwtetciq0.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <cRHSf.1991$TK2.563@trnddc07> <wccveubap2q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <VlVSf.325$Vx4.143@trnddc06> <wccr74q19up.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <AZkVf.1846$b07.929@trnddc05> <wccbqvu58b6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1FqVf.641025$084.20945@attbi_s22> <rEyVf.1936$Od7.1349@trnddc06>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1143390748 15014 192.74.137.71 (26 Mar 2006 16:32:28
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:32:28 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3631
Date: 2006-03-26T11:32:28-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq> writes:

>...After reading
> Duff's last post, I can see that he was talking outside of the
> language, ...

Yes, of course!  We were talking about how Ada _ought_ to deal with
uninitialized variables.  Therefore, we must be talking about
hypothetical languages that are different from Ada.

>...so that's where the misunderstanding was.  My position had a
> premise that we're dealing with Ada integers as they are (that is,
> non-abstract, and without a null value).

Yes, access types have null, and integers do not (in Ada).
But that's not a good argument that access types _should_
have null, or that integers should _not_ have null.
"It's best if Ada does X, because Ada does X" -- that's
circular reasoning.  ;-)

- Bob