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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,99934eaa35a086e8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!nntp.abs.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!feeder1.news.jippii.net!reader1.news.jippii.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail Message-ID: <420C645A.8070203@nowhere.fi> From: Niklas Holsti Organization: Tidorum Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020623 Debian/1.0.0-0.woody.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why should the value for a discriminant be static? References: <420A6FA5.9040802@nowhere.fi> <420B5D9B.8060400@nowhere.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:52:58 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.17.205.61 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@saunalahti.com X-Trace: reader1.news.jippii.net 1108108377 81.17.205.61 (Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:52:57 EET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:52:57 EET Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8232 Date: 2005-02-11T09:52:58+02:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter wrote: > Niklas Holsti wrote: > >> Now then, that's rather harsh. It's certainly legal Ada; if you think >> its philosophically faulty, you are entitled to your opinion and I am >> entitled to disagree; if you think its faulty because it leads to >> practical problems, the problem is just with the requirement for >> static discriminants in aggregates -- which is what this thread is >> about. > > > Not at all. There's a software engineering principle that one thing > should serve one purpose, and this violates that: it serves both to > identify the 2 classes and to provide the specific information for each > class. So the "fault" is philosophical. From your interpretation of that principle, you could argue against any use of "derived properties of objects", and insist on a separate component to hold each such derived property. Not attractive to me, but as I said, we can disagree on what is desirable, even if we agree that the current Ada rules are asymmetrical in this area. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .