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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.13.195.199 with SMTP id f190mr1067602ywd.66.1481841289063; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:34:49 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.15.143 with SMTP id d15mr13969otd.2.1481841289024; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:34:49 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!newspeer1.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!p16no696015qta.1!news-out.google.com!u18ni10052ita.0!nntp.google.com!75no513734ite.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:34:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.0.242.189; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.0.242.189 References: <999c67b0-4478-4d2b-8108-32ac48fe6316@googlegroups.com> <5cc38920-b746-48f6-87d4-1cf8effa2f02@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <13c3516c-129a-4721-a4a3-ef169a2df10c@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada 2012 Constraints (WRT an Ada IR) From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:34:49 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:32861 Date: 2016-12-15T14:34:48-08:00 List-Id: On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 7:53:59 AM UTC-7, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On 15/12/2016 15:34, Shark8 wrote: > > > > It seems like something's being lost in translation. Let me try restating it: > > * The thread asks about implementation of a particular concept. > > * The topic of the thread is of the implementation of a concept similar to the paper's. > > * The question posed at the start of this thread is about how to deal with representing the quality of Ada's subtypes as "a possibly empty set of constraints on a value". > > * Ada now has two syntactic methods of adding constraints to subtypes, the topic of the thread is how to represent these in a uniform manner. > > * The post is about how there ought to be a representation of the removal of values from a type which is suitable for all methods of expressing that concept in Ada. > > Nothing was lost. I beg to differ, as shown by your following list: > > - The concept is wrong. The concept of (a) a type consisting of two parts (1) a set of values, and (b) a set of operations upon those values; or (b) that there ought to be a way to represent constraints on the values that a type can use? > - Implementation is of little or no interest. Given that the topic of the thread is inimitably concerned with implementation you are manifestly wrong, at least insofar as this thread is concerned. > - Representation is no issue. It is in the case of an intermediate representation. > - Ada's dynamic predicates was a mistake. Irrelevant to the question the thread poses. > - Type specialization must be supported by more high-level and > consistent means (especially with ADT and separation of interfaces). That's a different issue altogether.