Re: Ada Distilled by Richard Riehle

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 8:30:36 AM UTC-6, rabbi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > That's what I think; but there's also a surprising amount of it that's about sets, too.
> 
> In what way? Off hand I can't see where I've used that at all.

The most obvious one is the TYPE / SUBTYPE relationship:
TYPE: A set of values, and a set of operations on those values.
SUBTYPE: A TYPE with an additional set of restrictions constraining the values.

Another was the CASE statement and its required coverage.

A third [IIRC; this may have been my own realization] had to do with visibility being treated as a set [of sets]: if a name exists uniquely, then that is legal; if there is no existence at all, it's a case of either mistaking the name or forgetting to WITH the dependency; if there are multiple existences then the compiler must error-out and demand a qualified name, renaming, or other such resolution. {Extendible to overloading; which is a set of names distinguished usually by parameter- or return-types.}

> 
> > Would you happen to recall what Richard said that so convinced you about it?
> 
> I don't recall his exact words. To me the fact that I can uniquely tailor each type to the real world.