From: "Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Why no abstract non-tagged types?
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:52:31 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2014-02-26T10:52:31-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2e5f406d-3fd1-4f8b-a1dd-c0c2a196cc94@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <rfovrp7433ff$.1pcytc3702k9d.dlg@40tude.net>
Please give some Ada202X mock-up of precisely what by-value types and scalar classes would wisely enable that are inexpressible throughout Ada2012. This is a two-part request: 1) explicitly, the proposed feature/syntax and 2) implicitly, the claim that no portion of Ada2012 can be utilized to accomplish that feature adequately with a different syntax (e.g., counter-claim: another branch of this thread shows that generic enumerations sufficiently accomplish the OP's desired abstract enumerations, hence obviating the need for a 2nd syntax to accomplish the desired effect).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-26 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-21 3:04 Why no abstract non-tagged types? Britt
2014-02-21 8:33 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2014-02-26 18:52 ` Dan'l Miller [this message]
2014-02-26 20:55 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2014-02-26 21:40 ` Eryndlia Mavourneen
2014-02-24 23:12 ` Shark8
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox