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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5992229ab824d8f7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mike Young <mikey@mcs.com>
Subject: Re: Q: on redefinition of "=
Date: 1996/04/02
Message-ID: <3160C33B.1FE2@mcs.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 145364380
references: <4jkj5sINN8d3@aleutian.cis.ohio-state.edu>
 <Dp6wAp.6w5.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <4jp05jINNqo6@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu> <dewar.828416284@schonberg>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Fen Software, Inc.
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I)
Date: 1996-04-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> "Anyway, in the design I'm currently working with all types must
> support automatic initialization and finalization (and thus are
> controlled types)"
> 
> This sounds truly awful. I wonder if whoever devised this approach has
> any idea how much overhead this approach introduces, not to mention
> complexity in the generated code.

==========
Would this be the equivalent of constructors/destructors in C++? I 
apologize for not seeing the problems. What is going on that would make 
this such a horrible approach?

Mike.