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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!inmet!ishmael!inmet!ada-uts!stt From: stt@ada-uts Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Collective response to := messa Message-ID: <57900084@ada-uts> Date: 5 Dec 88 17:33:00 GMT References: <10922@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> Nf-ID: #R:ulysses.homer.nj.att.com:-1092200:ada-uts:57900084:000:1519 Nf-From: ada-uts!stt Dec 5 12:33:00 1988 List-Id: > However, overloading > of Ada's basic operations does not seem justifiable, because they are > intimately concerned with the implementation of strong typing. I don't agree with the validity of this argument. Replacing user-defined assignment with builtin assignment could never create a violation of strong typing, in the sense that an inappropriate value would be placed in a variable. If assigning one type to another is considered a "violation" then this could be disallowed by rules similar to those that applied to "=", namely that the base types of the parameters to user-defined assignment must be the same. In fact, given the rules associated with parameter passing, there is no way that the substitution of a user-defined operation for a builtin operation could violate "strong typing." If anything, the user-defined operation would be limited to more strict rules, because the intermediate results would not be allowed to violate range restrictions. I think the only "valid" argument against user-defined assignment is an aesthetic/philosophic one, namely that it will have different visibility rules from user-defined operators. In particular, a := b will NOT be strictly equivalent to ":="(a,b), but rather will be interpreted in a local scope including an implicit "use" of the package in which the operand type is defined. However, the very great advantage of providing user-defined assignment outweighs this aesthetic one in my opinion. S. Tucker Taft Intermetrics, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02138