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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3dbf2f325f33ce35
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dkristol@see-my.sig (David Kristola)
Subject: Re: Elimination of "use" clauses
Date: 1999/07/20
Message-ID: <7n0jrj$n5r1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 502953157
Distribution: world
References: <dale-1807991510420001@192.168.0.2>
Organization: LockMart
Reply-To: dkristol@see-my.sig
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-07-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dale@cs.rmit.edu.au (Dale Stanbrough) writes:
>Richard D Riehle wrote:
>
>" >Good point.  I wouldn't mind having a concise way of saying (eg) "T is
>  >an integer type with just "+" and "-" operators.  But I still prefer
>  >"use type" to "package Ops".
>  
>  We agree up to a certain point.  Explicit export directives would 
>  solve the problem, but that is not currently part of Ada.  Again,
>  "use type" is too broad, I think.  "
>
>
>Export directives -could- do it (and it is not a bad idea at all),
>but we shouldn't forget that Ada already has the ability to export
>-just- the operators we want, and it's called using a private type
>and only advertising the appropriate operations.
>
>However this has the disadvantage that you can't use the private
>type in all the places that you might want to use an integer type.
>
>Dale

Can't "abstract" be used to remove the unwanted operators from
the original package?

function "*"(Left, Right : T) is abstract; -- eliminate multiplication


--djk, keeper of arcane lore & trivial fluff
Home: David95037 at aol dot com
Spam: goto.hades@welovespam.com