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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,75a8a3664688f227
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-09 06:20:12 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!nntp1.njy.teleglobe.net!teleglobe.net!news.stealth.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Parameter Modes, In In Out and Out
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:13:52 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Message-ID: <93f6ar$m44$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <Zmt56.57012$ca6.937797@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
 <7Cx56.90736$A06.3322588@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
 <937jab$s23$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A57CD7F.2228BFD5@brighton.ac.uk>
 <938p3u$omv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93cagm$c1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93e4e6$ucg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93encq$brm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 09 14:13:52 2001 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x61.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3812
Date: 2001-01-09T14:13:52+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <93encq$brm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  dmitry6243@my-deja.com wrote:
> But single dispatch is simply wrong for binary
> operations.

Declaring something is "simply wrong" is not an argument, just
an unsubstantiated claim. The issue here is one of complexity
versus functinality. The issue has been argued in great detail
on previous occasions, so there is little point in arguing
again, unless you think you have a new argument to bring to
the table (of which I have seen no evidence so far). I would
recommend that you dig up and study previous discussions of
this topic, and the open it again only if you think you have
something really new to add.

Otherwise I assume the conclusion will be the same as in
previous discussions :-)


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/