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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d2f0af5e440b367f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-02 10:10:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: proposal for new assignment operators References: X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: <9mEMa.86824$R73.10549@sccrnsc04> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.234.13.56 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1057165829 12.234.13.56 (Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:10:29 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:10:29 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:10:29 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39982 Date: 2003-07-02T17:10:29+00:00 List-Id: > I found the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled types to > be completely obscure and to my mind completely unnecessary, > particularly when compared with C++, where one simply overrides the > assignment operator if desired. On a recent thread we were told that the usual idiom in C++ was to do assignment a certain way to accomplish Finalization. "idiom" suggests it's up to the programmer to do it right. When some complex cases were mentioned, we were told basically that the programmer would override assignment differently. Personally, I prefer having the computer do it, and do it right, rather than having to do it myself, possibly making a mistaake in the process.