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,ce0900b60ca3f616
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-10 13:23:06 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!newsmi-eu.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-162.cvx2.telinco.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: List container strawman
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 20:15:12 -0000
Message-ID: <9sk5rm$140qdr$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
References: <kPoE7.9567$xS6.13287@www.newsranger.com>
 <3BE29AF4.80804@telepath.com> <3BE29BD4.10401@telepath.com>
 <3BE2DB99.B707D409@boeing.com> <M1DE7.10504$xS6.14588@www.newsranger.com>
 <3BE32A18.18404AD1@boeing.com> <gyME7.11045$xS6.15364@www.newsranger.com>
 <3BE443DE.574D669C@acm.org> <3BE58FDD.E1FB1815@san.rr.com>
 <bgR13FMw5mIK@eisner.encompasserve.org> <po0cs9.dt.ln@127.0.0.1>
 <DQUG7.19137$xS6.31310@www.newsranger.com>
 <3bec1cbe$0$15824$626a54ce@news.free.fr>
 <cEVG7.19219$xS6.31393@www.newsranger.com>
 <9sib27$13aeg3$5@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <9sjvrl$2pd$1@news.huji.ac.il>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-162.cvx2.telinco.net (212.1.140.162)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1005427383 37775803 212.1.140.162 (16 [25716])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16245
Date: 2001-11-10T20:15:12+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:9sjvrl$2pd$1@news.huji.ac.il...
> ...
> These goal are vrey worthy. In fact they are one of the reasons people
want
> inheritance.
> Problem is that we are looking for a way of achieving these goal, without
> making newcomers struggle with nested instatiations, and complexities of
the
> Ada tagged type approach (freezing, scope of access types etc. etc.)
> Perhaps I missed the point - but does your approach solve the dillema?

I thought we were agreed that there was no way to achieve the goals (of
decoupling) without the multiple instantiations. In any case, I believe that
is so, and I suppose I am trying to convince people that it's (very much!)
the lesser of two evils to have the multiple instantiations and the
decoupling. I really think this is a case where the apparently easier way is
in fact the harder one.

--
Best wishes,
Nick Roberts