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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,29d8139471e3f53e
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Preventing type extensions
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:32:11 +0300
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID: <8f9tdbFa0nU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <87iq2bfenl.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <874odv9npv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87y6b7cedd.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <66a3704c-54f9-4f04-8860-aa12f516134b@t3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <87d3sib44t.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <134q4k2ly2pf4$.17nlv1q6q5ivo.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4c8dec8e$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <epkb3s8dfxk0$.1qdvo5vg2fsgh.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8f6cceFrv2U1@mid.individual.net> <i6m402$gjp$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <8f97d6FobnU1@mid.individual.net>
 <1xjdyd281an6m$.1gymnlu3wjdcs.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8f9s0hFvvuU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net YED8A6/LilqaCsC62Ft84weULFLHbkzYFvsNzWuFIe9jzNfWMP
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RzR0JczVyDGkNw0aOizxnSMvVQ0=
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100328)
In-Reply-To: <8f9s0hFvvuU1@mid.individual.net>
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14081
Date: 2010-09-14T21:32:11+03:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Replying to my own, very confused post:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:16:37 +0300, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>>
>>> If an operation of a parent type calls several other operations with 
>>> redispatching, and several derived types override these called
>>>  operations in diverse ways, perhaps you need to test the calling 
>>> operation separately for each derived class. But if I understand 
>>> Dmitry's standpoint correctly, he would avoid the redispatching by 
>>> overriding the calling operation for each derived class, giving the
>>> same total number of operations to be tested, right?
>>
>> No, I am trying not to override non-abstract or non-null operations.

To which I (Niklas) replied:

> Aha! *Now* I understand your concept.

... and then I went on to speak nonsense. I must have had such a 
blinding flash of understanding (of Dmitry) that I was dazzled. I'm 
better now, thanks, and I do still feel that I now understand Dmitry's 
approach, which seems very rigorous, almost ascetic in its constraints. 
I will keep it in mind, as one possibility, when next I design a class.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .