From: Ivan Levashew <octagram@bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: Interfaces and abstract tagged types
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2008-10-16T02:23:46-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a44b25e-07c7-4b3f-9e22-08a778073e4a@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: d8k5v0eh9lhg.1ip39ui01oj9h.dlg@40tude.net
> Maybe, because I am right? (:-))
As for me, it's because it takes much time to get how to use every of
3 cases.
> reality. As I described in my
> previous post, we have a growing amount of code
> that is just noise.
> type A_Interface is limited interface;
> procedure Foo (X : A) is abstract;
> type A is abstract ... and A_Interface with ...;
> overriding procedure Foo (X : A);
A code duplication ratio is expected to be
between 2:1 and 3:1. Is it noise? Did your team
use generic mix-ins?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-16 9:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-05 7:01 Interfaces and abstract tagged types Dale Stanbrough
2008-10-05 7:43 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-10-05 20:29 ` Robert A Duff
2008-10-06 8:25 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-10-16 7:51 ` Ivan Levashew
2008-10-16 8:29 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-10-16 9:23 ` Ivan Levashew [this message]
2008-10-16 10:05 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-10-16 10:27 ` Georg Bauhaus
2008-10-16 12:21 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-10-16 13:35 ` Georg Bauhaus
2008-10-16 14:30 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2008-10-23 6:39 ` Ivan Levashew
2008-10-25 8:57 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox