From: Jeremiah <jeremiah.breeden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Avoiding dispatching in procedure's with classwide types
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2016-06-08T18:12:06-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <72e28bf8-5fb2-42d8-8346-29d72f88d8da@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nj7cu6$29l$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:05:37 PM UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> Mainly because there were semantic problems with allowing prefixed notation
> on some kinds of untagged types (esp. access types). Because Ada tries hard
> not to break privacy for Legality Rules, disallowing access types also
> requires disallowing any untagged private types (as the full type might have
> been access). Since essentially all ADTs should be tagged (and controlled)
> these days, just saying tagged seemed like the best way to deal with the
> issues.
Ok, that makes sense.
> I have to wonder if a "final" for a tagged type (not an operation) would be
> useful, as there's no real good reason to hide taggedness (and lots of good
> reasons not to hide it, prefix notation being exhibit A).
>
> Randy.
I could get behind that as that would solve my issue. Plus it shouldn't break existing code. Should still be able to subtype it?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-09 1:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-28 19:01 Avoiding dispatching in procedure's with classwide types Jeremiah
2016-06-06 3:12 ` rieachus
2016-06-07 2:23 ` Jeremiah
2016-06-07 7:43 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2016-06-07 11:30 ` Jeremiah
2016-06-07 21:05 ` Randy Brukardt
2016-06-09 1:12 ` Jeremiah [this message]
2016-06-06 3:24 ` rieachus
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox