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,c406e0c4a6eb74ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:27:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1w3sfkwcp4q0e.1u4xeln7msgi5$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de zyzhtXeO59wMkDfQHGipughUvdTTS4ScZHXl8o0nBp2QuuKoQ= User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.12.1 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2935 Date: 2004-08-23T19:27:52+02:00 List-Id: On 22 Aug 2004 17:18:28 -0700, fabio de francesco wrote: > 3) "I think the very existence of limited types" (Ok, Proven > Assumption) > "is a fundamental flaw in Ada".(Unrelated Consequences). > How can it be proved? Please will someone ( may be Kevin itself ) show > me the rationale of this reasoning? Whether it was a fundamental flaws is a question, but not everybody is happy with limited types. They are a mixture of quite different concepts which probably should be dealt separately: 1. No assignment, never 2. No predefined [in]equality 3. Cannot be initialized (who need such? Ada 2005 will probably fix that) 4. Cannot be copied (no copy constructor) 5. Passed by reference 4 => 5, but why 5 should imply 4? 2 is unrelated to anything else. 1 should be no different from 2 or any other *operation*. 3 is nonsense. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de