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: 103376,94b44ecb42c031b9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthias Teege <matthias@mteege.de>
Subject: Re: Searching for an object
Date: 2000/08/21
Message-ID: <87g0nyy1kk.fsf@moon.mteege.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 660796120
Sender: matthias@moon.mteege.de
References: <87og2q9yyp.fsf@moon.mteege.de> <8nrh3t$ht9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: DVZ Datenverarbeitungszentrum Mecklenburg-Vorpommern GmbH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-08-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> In article <87og2q9yyp.fsf@moon.mteege.de>,
>   Matthias Teege <matthias@mteege.de> wrote:
> > I've defined the following type:
> >
> > type customer is record
> >    aname  : String( 1..25);
> >    bname  : String( 1..25);
> > end record;
> 
> This looks shaky right from the start. How do you know how many
> characters in these fields are valid? Ada string handling doesn't rely

Yes it is really bad code but is only for my learning
purposes. It is a quick hack and I'm very impatient. ;-) 

[...]

> Is object supposed to be some global variable? Otherwise, this looks
> like you are familiar with "object" notation in some other "OO"
> languages, and are looking for the same notation in Ada. Eg: you want
> to call Object.Find (...) rather than Find(Object, ...) Is that your
> question?

Yes, I want to call Object.Find(in_field, for_this_string)
but the only way to implement this I see is: 

        if in_field = "field1" and for_this_string = "foo"
        then
           result = "found";
        if in_field = "field2" and for_this_string = "foo"
        then
           result = "found";

and so on. The problem isn't the "object notation" but the
record notation. I can access an record field with
"record.fieldname = ..." and now I want a variable
"fieldname" to spare myself from the long way described
bellow. I'm looking for a short notation like
"record.$fieldname". I hope I can make you understand. :-) 

Many thanks
Matthias

-- 
Matthias Teege -- matthias@mteege.de -- http://emugs.de
make world not war
PGP-Key auf Anfrage