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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00
	autolearn=no 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: 2001-11-14 07:00:51 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: List container strawman
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:50:22 -0500
Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc
Message-ID: <9su0b3$l3m$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
References: <kPoE7.9567$xS6.13287@www.newsranger.com>
 <3BE29AF4.80804@telepath.com> <uzo6148rz.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <x7vu1w53424.fsf@smaug.pushface.org> <ubsi6hbxu.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <3BF1A33D.73DE084F@boeing.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk
X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1005749411 21622 136.170.200.133 (14 Nov 2001 14:50:11
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Nov 2001 14:50:11 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16503
Date: 2001-11-14T14:50:11+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I don't think I'd characterize it as "complicated" - more like "awkward". In
the past, I've built data structures that would have a "private" flavor and
a "limited private" flavor so that when I had the simple case (assignment
and equality inherently available) I didn't have to go to the effort of
inventing small subprograms or otherwise jockying around the fact that the
limited case was going to insist I provide something that was already there.

I think the reason for "private" being preferable over "limited private" is
that now we can build things that inherit from Controlled, so if you need to
do something to control behavior on assignment, you can, but you don't have
to for the simple case. Hence, you can save yourself some generic parameters
and make instantiation a simpler matter. (Do you really want to have to
define an "Assign" procedure every time you want to stack up some integers?
Its not complicated - just a pain in the posterior.)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Jeffrey Carter" <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:3BF1A33D.73DE084F@boeing.com...
>
> If the client has to provide an Assign procedure for the Element type,
> then the Element type should be limited private. While I have no problem
> with this, I think most of the participants in this discussion have
> already decided that's too complicated for them.
>