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: 103376,5992229ab824d8f7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dgibson@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu (david scott gibson)
Subject: Re: Q: on redefinition of "=
Date: 1996/04/02
Message-ID: <4js2rkINNboj@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 145479413
references: <4jkj5sINN8d3@aleutian.cis.ohio-state.edu>
 <Dp8wn3.B1x@world.std.com> <4jrsumINN9m0@snoopy.cis.ohio-state.edu>
 <Dp92G6.KI5@world.std.com>
organization: The Ohio State University,
 Department of Computer and Information Science
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <Dp92G6.KI5@world.std.com>,
Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:
>So why use a controlled type?  Perhaps because *some* of your types need
>Initialize or Finalize, and you want to inherit from a single root type
>which has Swap.  Well, I wonder if you could have a non-controlled root
>type with Swap, and extend it with controlled components in the cases
>where you need that functionality?

That's an interesting idea.  I may need to fake multiple inheritance for
this since my representation types are already derived from an abstract
type (which may have non-controlled implementations).  It's not clear to
me how everything will work out with non-controlled components layered on
top of controlled components, but it might work.  Thanks very much for
the suggestion!

--
Dave
dgibson@cis.ohio-state.edu