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: 103376,5b0235b23a9db0f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-20 06:20:14 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!novia!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: Robert Dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Extensible Enummerated types FW: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:06:56 GMT Organization: Deja.com Message-ID: <94c61v$h4a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 20 14:06:56 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x70.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:4231 Date: 2001-01-20T14:06:56+00:00 List-Id: In article , comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org wrote: > From: Bob Leif > To: Tucker Taft et al. > I believe that at one time you mentioned the possibility of > extending an enumerated type. This would greatly facilitate > object oriented programming. We did indeed consider this possibility, and I even think it was in one of the earlier mapping documents, but it was excluded because the implementation and description difficulties outweighed the usefullness, and further more for the specific examples presented, there seemed to be perfectly acceptable alternative methods of doing things. There is quite a bit of semantic structure in Ada that depends on knowing the possible set of enumeration types statically. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/