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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Real OO
Date: 1996/03/21
Message-ID: <DoMy99.AF6@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143606077
references: <4id031$cf9@dayuc.dayton.saic.com>
 <Pine.NXT.3.91.960319235945.4281A-100000-100000@pentad>
 <4ip7eb$66v@dayuc.dayton.saic.com> <leschkes.827424395@ferret>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <leschkes.827424395@ferret>,
Scott Leschke <leschkes@ferret.cig.mot.com> wrote:
>How does one declare syntactically that an operation is SPECIFIC to a
>type within a class, as opposed to being either a primitive of that
>type or class-wide?

If you declare it *not* in the same package, and it has a parameter of
type T, then it's specific to T (not general for everything in T'Class).
Jon Volan said this is usualy a bad idea, and I agree.

>I've also wondered if there was any way to explicitly declare an operation
>as invariant within a class and hence, non-overridable.

Make it class-wide.

- Bob