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!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news-kar1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:19:34 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <ci46p6$miu$3@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com>
   <chi5vs$jjq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <m3fz5udscs.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <chklph$nmf$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <m3llfmc557.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <chmnjf$dg6$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <m3acw0bl1u.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <choco2$e4i$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <m3k6v39btb.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <chrs33$jio$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <m37jqza36u.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1095081574 23134 134.91.1.34 (13 Sep 2004
 13:19:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:19:34 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3674
Date: 2004-09-13T13:19:34+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

jayessay <nospam@foo.com> wrote:
: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes:
: 
:> Now consider a situation where there are no two similarly named
:> functions in the environment, with similar results, both producing
:> values of the same Lisp number type, and both consuming arguments of
:> the same number types.
:> 
:> I think that a static type system like Ada's, if used, will
:> likely catch a logic error at compile time, that is when by mistake
:> one function is used where the other should have been used.
: 
: This is at best unlikely as has been demonstrated.

Where? Our arguments have been revolving around an undocumented
function, whose purpose has _not_ been the one that has helped
you in finding a (wrong) supposed logic error. There was no
logic error. The function has had a different purpose than the
one you have attributed. This is worse, even if it seems to support
you argument.

: Types, type
: systems, and type consistency offer little to no help with this.

Once more, could you be more specific with "little to no" and perhaps
apply this to the expression (+ offset (mod n 16))?


-- Georg