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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c3a7c1845ec5caf9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/04/29
Message-ID: <3365BDC7.470A@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 238139155
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning>
 <335E0B1F.12C9@elca-matrix.ch> <E93v4u.DG1@world.std.com>
 <335F5971.6375@elca-matrix.ch> <E95y9L.AK1@world.std.com>
 <33671d9c.5046069@news.airmail.net> <3360ABA6.7D55@elca-matrix.ch>
 <dewar.862141608@merv>
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Mats says
> 
> <<And yes, I think that there should be an automatic redefinition in Ada
> once "=" and one of "<", ">", ">=", "<=" are defined (but I realize it's
> too late now, this should have been done in Ada 83).>>
> 
> This would be a terrible idea, since it would build in serious inefficiencies.
> A typical way of implementing comparisons for a complex type is to have a
> single comparison routine that indicates the compare status (LT, EQ, GT) and
> then have the operators be a simple wrapper around this routine.
> 
> [...]

When efficiency is important, the programmer can define all five
relational operators explicitly (and inline them, etc.). When he is
lazy, he can define just two. I don't really see the problem.