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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED.3d73Ybk3C5U4I2t8lv+lAQ.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Type naming conventions: Any_Foo Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 13:38:41 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 3d73Ybk3C5U4I2t8lv+lAQ.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 Content-Language: en-US X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:57694 Date: 2019-12-08T13:38:41+01:00 List-Id: On 2019-12-08 12:55, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > On 12/7/19 12:21 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On 2019-12-07 11:13, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: >>> >>> As these are generic data structures, there are no instances of the >>> type. >> >> Each type has instances = objects of. > > I have seen a generic data structure named Generic_B_Trees, written by > Dimitry Kazakov. It has 2 generic formal types, and no instances of > either of those types. I am not sure what your point is. The formal type is not a type. It is a class, set of types. An actual type of the formal type is a proper type. Both have instances. The instances of a formal type are types. The instances of a type are object of. My point is that calling a class or a singular type Element is not good. >>> As I have presented here in the past a proof of concept of a GUI >>> library that uses no access types, this is demonstrably false. >> >> Yes, I remember you did, but I also remember that it was not really >> usable. > > I implemented several examples using the it, and found it quite usable, > and the resulting code much easier to understand than typeical GUIs. In my view it lacks fundamental GUI elements like aggregation of widgets, hierarchical organization of events and event handling, classes of widgets. I don't see how these can be solved without references. I hate pointers, but I doubt that the references required for GUI can be made significantly safer than pointers in Ada, presently. And the reference types must have separate names anyway, again presently. [ I could imagine some attribute to denote corresponding type anonymously, like T'Class does, but that is not Ada. ] > However, the point in contention was your claim that you are required to > use access types to have a GUI. When that was demonstrated to be untrue, > you attempted to change the subject. So I consider this discussion > finished. OK -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de