From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Redefined "=" = generic disaster?
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:29:52 GMT
Date: 2000-11-05T04:29:52+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8u2nnt$hap$1@nnrp1.deja.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3A01815A.75D30E9F@averstar.com
In article <3A01815A.75D30E9F@averstar.com>,
Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com> wrote:
> My current thinking is that we should have preserved the Ada
> 83 reemergence rules for everything except record types.
An easy way to implement this would be to have a special pragma
for tagged type
pragma Restricted_Tag (tagged-type-name)
This pragma would restrict tagged types as follows
No use of 'Tag attribute
No class types
No derivations
(is that enough to allow a compiler to implement the tagged
type with no tag? If not, add more restrictions :-)
Now you have tagged types that of course "work right" but can
be implemented without the normal overhead of tagged types.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-05 4:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-10-21 6:59 Redefined "=" = generic disaster? Vincent Marciante
2000-10-21 0:00 ` Jeff Carter
2000-10-21 0:00 ` Vincent Marciante
2000-10-22 2:50 ` Jeff Carter
2000-10-22 0:00 ` Vincent Marciante
2000-10-21 0:00 ` Vincent Marciante
2000-10-28 11:12 ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-29 8:43 ` Vincent Marciante
2000-10-30 3:49 ` Lao Xiao Hai
2000-10-30 18:46 ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-31 3:27 ` Lao Xiao Hai
2000-10-31 6:54 ` Vincent Marciante
2000-10-31 19:51 ` Robert Dewar
2000-11-01 17:47 ` Mats Weber
2000-11-02 5:27 ` Vincent Marciante
2000-11-02 16:52 ` Mats Weber
2000-11-02 14:59 ` Tucker Taft
2000-11-05 4:29 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
2000-11-05 4:32 ` Robert Dewar
2000-11-05 4:26 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox