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: 103376,183a4dcac8cf6632 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dgibson@thalamus.cis.ohio-state.edu (david scott gibson) Subject: Re: Q: on redefinition of equal Date: 1996/04/04 Message-ID: <4k131kINN2ac@thalamus.cis.ohio-state.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 145812689 references: <9604031559.AA05644@most> organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <9604031559.AA05644@most>, W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 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