Re: Will "renames" increase program size?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:42:01 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:

> you seem to
> be defining terms with regard to how you see the world and what
> pictures go on in your head when you think about a program's
> semantics.

How could it be otherwise?

> So in this context, I can kind of understand why you'd
> think of a "return object" as somehow belonging inside the function
> and thus being a separate object from the object that holds the
> function result from the caller's point of view.  And in this view,
> sure, there would be a copy.  But all this is just based on how you
> see the world, not on anything objective.  The only really objective
> definitions we have here are the ones given by the RM.

How would you define a "language design bug" based on the RM itself?

Renaming in Ada has problems with its semantics, same is true for the
return statement, in my opinion. This opinion cannot be based on the RM. It
is based on an interpretation of the RM in some much wider context. Call it
confusion or common sense, no matter. You might think that in your opinion
Ada's renaming is just perfect. But exactly like mine your opinion is also
based on your world view rather than on the RM.

It would be useless to discuss Ada's concept of renaming (or function
result, or anything else) in the terms of the RM, because in this context
it neither right or wrong, it just is as it is.

> I can understand why you might look at things differently; but
> it's hard for me to see how any conclusions that you draw, that are
> based on your own meanings of the terms derived from your own pictures
> of the world, are going to be of much use to anyone else.

It is good enough to me, that you can understand why I see problems with
renaming.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de