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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,81cf52699486abe7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: falis@ma.aonix.com (Ed Falis) Subject: Re: Ada95 Strengths/Weaknesses. Date: 1999/09/28 Message-ID: <1103_938545237@DZOG-CHEN>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 530394761 Sender: news@sd.aonix.com (USENET News Admin @flash) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 192.157.137.134 References: <37EED7B8.245C0054@yukyonline.co.yuky> <37EF9B98.7F817CC0@pwfl.com> <1104_938481247@DZOG-CHEN> Organization: Aonix, San Diego, CA, USA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-09-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 28 Sep 1999 14:45:44 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: > falis@ma.aonix.com (Ed Falis) writes: > > On 27 Sep 1999 19:48:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote: > > > By the way, here's the C++ for your unimplemented third case - > > Not quite the same thing as he did. Below is Ada code that does what > > your C++ does. > > In what way (aside from from function announcement output) > is my C++ code not the same as his Ada code? The destructor. Given what your code did, there was no need for all the infrastructure he put in place. There was certainly no need for adjust or finalize, and the effect of initialize was easily handled without deriving from controlled. Furthermore, since none of the C++ members were virtual, there was no need for a tagged type in this situation. He was, I believe, presenting a scaffolding for more situations where more complex resource management was necessary. It certainly wasn't in this situation. And as you can see, the verboseness was more a matter of idiom than necessity. - Ed