From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: abstract types and subprograms
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 21:52:15 +0200
Date: 2014-05-20T21:52:15+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1xpqa3ak5k59r$.ncugtl37io47.dlg@40tude.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: wccsio4beka.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com
On Tue, 20 May 2014 12:27:49 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:
> Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> writes:
>
>> But does it make sense (philosophically, not accordingly the current
>> specification) to use a function which returns an abstract type for a record
>> extension aggregate?
>
> Yes, it makes sense to create objects of an abstract type,
> and the most likely place to use such a thing is as the
> ancestor part in an extension aggregate.
I disagree. There is no need for instances of abstract objects, as there is
no need of extension aggregates. There should be proper constructors
instead.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-20 19:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-20 10:22 abstract types and subprograms Victor Porton
2014-05-20 10:51 ` mockturtle
2014-05-20 11:45 ` Victor Porton
2014-05-20 16:27 ` Robert A Duff
2014-05-20 19:52 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
2014-05-24 18:49 ` Robert A Duff
2014-05-24 19:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2014-05-20 11:55 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2014-05-20 12:28 ` Victor Porton
2014-05-20 14:11 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox