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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!ulysses!hector!dsr From: dsr@hector.UUCP (David S. Rosenblum) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Collective response to := messages Keywords: User defined assignment Message-ID: <10923@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> Date: 2 Dec 88 14:58:16 GMT References: <8811282217.AA04896@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> <24856@sri-unix.SRI.COM> <42334@linus.UUCP> Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com Reply-To: dsr@hector.UUCP (David S. Rosenblum) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ List-Id: In article <42334@linus.UUCP> eachus@mbunix.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: | | "Overloading is defined for subprograms, enumeration literals, |operators, and single entries, and also for the operations that are |inherent in several basic operations such as assignment, membership |tests, allocators, the literal null, aggregates, and string literals." | | Overloading, and overload resolution involving basic operations |is a fact of Ada life. Yes, but there is an important difference between overloading of operators, subprograms, etc., and overloading of basic operations. Overloaded basic operations are ALWAYS implicitly defined--they can NEVER be user-defined. It is the proposal to allow user-defined overloadings of basic operations that is prompting all the "frothing". ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Rosenblum UUCP: {ucbvax, decvax}!ulysses!dsr AT&T Bell Laboratories ARPA: dsr@ulysses.att.com 600 Mountain Ave. dsr%ulysses@att.arpa Murray Hill, NJ 07974-2070 (201) 582-2906 -------------------------------------------------------------------