Re: Q: on redefinition of equal

[dgibson@thalamus.cis.ohio-state.edu (david scott gibson)]

In article <9604031559.AA05644@most>,
W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) <wwgrol@PSESERV3.FW.HAC.COM> wrote:
>I don't know how inescapable is your "requirement" to hide predefined "="
>from "ALL" data types.  But here's something to consider:
>
>How much will it cost over the life cycle to have maintenance programmers
>
>replacing
>
>   if (A = B) = True then
>
>with
>
>   if A = B then
>
>only to (attempt to) compile and then change it back?

Well, of course, this is only one of the problems with such a
strategy.  BTW, I consider

    if Is_True(A = B) then 

preferable to using two different ='s since appears a little less
confusing.  Note that I'm only exploring possibilities at this point!

>Of course, with GNAT you can change the compiler to accept the standard
>form with your new type Bool  :-)

If I wanted to modify the compiler, all I'd need to do is change the
Normalize_Scalars pragma to initialize all scalars with valid
representations.  Then I could use the built-in scalars directly with
the aid of the modified, but still legal, pragma.  (Of course, such a
modification directly contradicts the implementation advice.)

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