Re: Subject/Object Confusion Syndrome [was: Ada Objects Help]

[dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)]

In article <D3MwqH.LDL@swlvx2.msd.ray.com>,
John Volan <jgv@swl.msd.ray.com> wrote:
>dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:
>>Quite right.  Much in the same way that templates in C++ are not
>>explicitly limited to "generic" situations, considering that
>>templates are frequently used to implement bounded arrays in a manner
>>that would make Ada people giggle.
>
>the safety that Ada-like arrays provide.  For instance, are there C++
>compilers out there that can *remove* index-constraint checks when
>they can be proven unnecessary, yet retain them when they are needed?
>
Hmm, this should be crossposted, but I think CodeCenter does.  It's
been a while now.  You see, I've been "C++ Free" since August, 1994
:-)

>On the other hand, are you also implying that Ada95 tagged types are
>in some way inferior as a means of implementing object-oriented
>designs?  If so, what do you mean?
>
Not quite.  What I was saying was that I agreed with Dewar's original
comment -- tagged types do _not_ imply they are limited to
inheritance.  There's some extra goodies you get out of using tagged
types that go past things like inheritance (RTTI, for instance).
What I was _really_ trying to say is that tagged types exhibit the
same philosophical flexibility as templates in C++ (or anything else
you'd like to creatively do a #define on :-)

-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)