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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,90108ed846e3f1bf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:20:51 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why constructing functions is a mess [was Language lawyer
 question:
 task activation
References: 
 <ccf8fc4b-80e3-4732-84e3-16c4e2d10c3d@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
  <1dusr7frk73m7.nlsagplge0hk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <09a7aab3-d105-4a40-b25b-e2824cb12f89@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <rv6zobw6fror.csu22kh631qi$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <24bdd0df-9554-49de-9c5e-99572c9cdf34@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <d1d318e7-9cd8-4f28-9cc8-afa3752e711e@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <1v0f2pkso7p50.vein84avao5t.dlg@40tude.net>
 <499ede41$0$32665$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1lhxmo6l2ypux.bei2ffp1m3e$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <499f2c59$0$31868$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1vcaimc8kjj30$.kf3rsd670ebp$.dlg@40tude.net> <go9t07$lht$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1gxn72yzshp07$.6ytqydmmz37u.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1gxn72yzshp07$.6ytqydmmz37u.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <49a92c29$0$32670$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Feb 2009 13:20:57 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65426d37.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=\^3HBDZ1]1Ngj[ZPFj7ehOA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbIeRhPW`=oTZMA:ho7QcPOVCm>CHHjcW02FHVE9l12]a]J
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4819
Date: 2009-02-28T13:20:57+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> Topic: large system design, information hiding:
> 
>       type T (<>) is abstract tagged limited private;
>    private
>       type T (...constraints...) is abstract tagged limited record
>          ...
>       end record;
> 
> In order to be used in
> 
>    type S is new T with ...;
>    function Create (....) return S;

How/Why should this derivation be possible? (Deriving publicly
from an abstract limited type with unknown discriminants--to me,
the <> signals the intent of the author of T, namely that T
should be considered none of our business?)


> Remember? Constructor is not function. It never will. See the problem?

Assuming C++ has constructors, will your arguments apply
in the following examples (just trying to understand):

class T
{
public:
  virtual void op() = 0;
private:
  T(char constraint) : c(constraint) {}
  char c;
};

class S : public T
{
public:
  S() {}
};

(Note: no suitable default constructor in T)