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: 103376,635cd9622b25ae59
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "REH" <spamjunk@stny.rr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Type safety, C++ and code generation
Date: 2 May 2006 08:54:24 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1146585264.765010.101420@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <e2q6p8$idj$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
   <1146143954.169807.207080@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <e2qj9l$edt$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
   <1146148380.102042.119860@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <e2qn8t$n13$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
   <2051047.MTAq1HeU7p@linux1.krischik.com>
   <e36u45$s2s$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
   <1146576797.106931.267280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
   <e37sfc$323$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.91.173.36
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1146585276 26647 127.0.0.1 (2 May 2006 15:54:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:54:36 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <e37sfc$323$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Firefox/1.5.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.91.173.36;
   posting-account=lnUIyw0AAACoRB2fMF2SFTIilm8F10q2
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4015
Date: 2006-05-02T08:54:24-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> REH wrote:
>
> >>>class R1 : ranged_type<int, 0, 100> {};
> >>>class R2 : ranged_type<int, 0, 100> {};
> >>>class R3 : ranged_type<int, 0, 101> {};
> >>>
> >>>to create new types.
> >>
> >>Except that those new types would be problematic to use with operations
> >>that are already defined for ranged_type (especially those which return
> >>ranged_type), because there is no implicit conversion to the derived class.
> >
> > That's not true.  operators are usually defined using references.
>
> As written above: "especially those which return ranged_type".
>
> // some operation on the range type (can be a template)
> ranged_type<int, 0, 100> foo() {/* ... */}
>
> // some "new type"
> class R : ranged_type<int, 0, 100> {};
>
> R r = foo(); // bang!
>

Yes, which is why I said that one of the problems was that it was
missing necessary constructors.

REH