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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,29d8139471e3f53e
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Preventing type extensions
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <87iq2bfenl.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <874odv9npv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87y6b7cedd.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <66a3704c-54f9-4f04-8860-aa12f516134b@t3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <87d3sib44t.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <134q4k2ly2pf4$.17nlv1q6q5ivo.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4c8dec8e$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <epkb3s8dfxk0$.1qdvo5vg2fsgh.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8f6cceFrv2U1@mid.individual.net> <i6m402$gjp$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <8f97d6FobnU1@mid.individual.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:46:51 +0200
Message-ID: <1xjdyd281an6m$.1gymnlu3wjdcs.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Sep 2010 18:46:50 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: a0c3c8f3.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=cJHd>8A]58\HigV@eW57PQMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[c>T\^nE^;mY[6LHn;2LCV^[<mhadbfdU[X_:J:D1f]>QTXYEBcE6[JR
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14075
Date: 2010-09-14T18:46:50+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:16:37 +0300, Niklas Holsti wrote:

> If an operation of a parent type calls several other operations with 
> redispatching, and several derived types override these called 
> operations in diverse ways, perhaps you need to test the calling 
> operation separately for each derived class. But if I understand 
> Dmitry's standpoint correctly, he would avoid the redispatching by 
> overriding the calling operation for each derived class, giving the same 
> total number of operations to be tested, right?

No, I am trying not to override non-abstract or non-null operations.

I think you have a certain way of decomposition in mind. This decomposition
is driven by the idea of re-dispatch or OOTIA's "simple dispatch" or, more
generally, by object's identity (rather than contract). I don't like this
sort of decomposition in first place.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de