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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dd8f3dccd1e7e410
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <matsw@mail.com>
Subject: Re: Dynamic run-time
Date: 2000/04/04
Message-ID: <38EA16C5.22EC8332@mail.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 606623612
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8bvp21$ssv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E3BAC4.FC400CA4@averstar.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sunrise.ch
X-Trace: news1.sunrise.ch 954865350 17277 195.141.231.162 (4 Apr 2000 16:22:30
 GMT)
Organization: Usenet provided by sunrise communications ag
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Apr 2000 16:22:30 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-04T16:22:30+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Tucker Taft wrote:

> Not really.  Using tagged types you can do the kind of dynamic binding
> that exists in C++ or Eiffel, but not the kind of "very dynamic" binding
> that you can do in SmallTalk.  The upside is that in Ada you will
> never get a "message not understood."  [...]

Well, you can get Constraint_Error instead of "message not understood",
see Ada RM 3.9.2(16).