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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dbcfe2b0a74da57e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Inherited Methods and such
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:52:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1191099160.227234.125330@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: <1190321119.206313.65290@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
   <egz670qwxgyj$.15oz5zin5794w$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1190408526.100291.265040@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
   <9ukf2wtqjs0q$.iuijmal4x56b$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1190497995.498679.119190@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
   <1mw3qju08q8uj.sgzht7ld9ydc$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1190579805.451187.71140@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <1i8ksr774bjbj.vpmnx3c0i9qz.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1190646125.024072.310020@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
   <1r9s9v6pcjifl.vp4ktk0unpd1.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1190753631.240548.101820@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
   <wcck5qdpq92.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
   <1190843408.713838.128690@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
   <wccps02fw9v.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
   <wcchclefuge.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
   <1191012272.457766.273330@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
   <uuiy8hvdrhef$.8tiuhv6kgf8f$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.3.214.62
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1191099160 17772 127.0.0.1 (29 Sep 2007 20:52:40
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:52:40 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <uuiy8hvdrhef$.8tiuhv6kgf8f$.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.3.214.62;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2227
Date: 2007-09-29T13:52:40-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 29 Wrz, 22:35, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

> > Yes, this example is convincing.
>
> No, it is not. Because aggregate is not a replacement for user-defined
> constructors.
>
> 1. It breaks encapsulation as you should make the record nature of type
> public.

Why it would make any difference?
The type is tagged and this is known. If it's tagged, then it has the
record nature - no way and no reason to hide it.

The record itself can be private, because the constructor function is
presumably in the same package.

> 2. The base type cannot enforce vital construction code, when records are
> exposed.

I don't understand this part.

> 3. Nothing can be done for destructors.

Right.

> 4. Dispatch upon construction completion and before destruction beginning
> is still impossible.

Why?

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/