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,e501dbd4bdafeed2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Matthew Heaney" Subject: Re: null record extension mechanism Date: 1999/11/10 Message-ID: <3829765c_3@news1.prserv.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 546892474 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <38295873.990923A1@interact.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net X-Trace: 10 Nov 1999 13:42:52 GMT, 32.101.8.245 Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services Mime-version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <38295873.990923A1@interact.net.au> , G wrote: > The whole point of having an [abstract][tagged][null][record] is > so that it can be extended. Is that correct ? That's the point of tagged types. A tagged null record just happens not to have any components; it's like counting by starting at zero. > It can not itself be > instantiated, but derivations of it can. That's what an abstract tagged type is. You'd typically declare a tagged type as abstract because you have an abstract operation. > So, it appears that one of the major activities programmers (in this language) > undergo is the careful sculpturing/engineering of types. (?) Yes. That's the essence of object-oriented programming: programming with abstractions, implemented as types. > I guess that at some undetermined time in the future, the "penny will drop" > and I will no longer be stumbling in the darkness with this. That's exactly right. Just keep doing it, and you'll learn it. > Is there any useful online information about strategies for doing this design > work ? Do an online search for "object-oriented programming," and see what drops out. There's a web-site, called Cetis-Links or something like that, that has all the OO technology stuff you could ever want. Matt -- Why stop at evolution and cosmology, though? Let's make sure that the schoolkids of Kansas get a really first-rate education by loosening up the teaching standards for other so-called scientific ideas that are, after all, just theories. The atomic theory, for example. The theory of relativity. Heck, the Copernican theory--do we really know that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth? John Rennie, Scientific American, Oct 1999