From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 X-Received: by 2002:ad4:50c7:: with SMTP id e7mr7020779qvq.58.1616114097375; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:34:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a25:4ce:: with SMTP id 197mr2854540ybe.462.1616114097199; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:34:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:193:4103:71a0:e984:a5fd:bb3c:1a8; posting-account=1tLBmgoAAAAfy5sC3GUezzrpVNronPA- NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:193:4103:71a0:e984:a5fd:bb3c:1a8 References: <89128f73-fcc5-4e57-8067-d09877ba0211n@googlegroups.com> <6ca041f3-2669-4497-9548-2f17666702a6n@googlegroups.com> <26c44e00-a899-455a-a929-1e23c7935fe3n@googlegroups.com> <9abb081d-a323-466d-9ae8-a2fc8fa24725n@googlegroups.com> <9933c99a-46b1-4541-aa15-f5c23e92b037n@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <00c75105-f1a9-4dba-bbe9-65470bff2b4an@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: array from static predicate on enumerated type From: Matt Borchers Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:34:57 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:61621 List-Id: Niklas, Don't get me wrong, I love Ada and use extensively. The ease in which a pr= ogrammer can quickly get from a modestly complex problem to a correct progr= am when using Ada is great. Like many have said, Ada requires you to have = a program design in your head before writing the program. The Static_Predi= cate thing was certainly a surprise to me. One now has to decide early on = in design if they'd rather have a convenient way to do member tests with 'i= n' or do they require the use of 'Pos, 'First, etc. Sorry, not both. Pret= ty useless IMO. I still haven't heard or read of a good reason to decide t= o not implement any kind of usability for the constraint attributes. I wis= h I had the transcript from the Ada Group's discussions on this topic. It = must have been a good one. Do they keep transcripts of their discussions? = If so, does anybody know where to find them? Regards, Matt On Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 6:15:34 AM UTC-4, Niklas Holsti wrote: > To be sure, Ada is showing some of its age. Updates of the Ada standards= =20 > have made extensive additions to the language, while taking great pains= =20 > to remain mostly upwards compatible, not only in syntax and semantics=20 > but also in wider usability goals such as remaining competitive for=20 > hard-real-time embedded systems and safety-critical systems where=20 > implementation overheads and implementation complexity must be held=20 > down. This inevitably means that new high-level features such as static= =20 > predicates cannot always be fully orthogonal to other features of the=20 > language.=20