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: fac41,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Eiffel and Java + Ada dispatching Date: 1996/11/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 197343025 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: In article donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: > Jon S Anthony writes: > > :> :> type Some_Type is tagged limited private; > > :> :I meant "type Some_Type is new Other_Type with private". > > :In the first, "Some_Type" is the generic formal (like the T in Eiffel) > :and could be instantiated with anything. > > Do you mean like the following? > > class X [T] ... -- unconstrained genericity. Yes. > If so, this is different from what Bob Duff said. Huh????? I went and checked and this is seems to be exactly what Bod said! Here's what he said: >> I believe Eiffel has something similar to both, but I forget the syntax. >> Is this the "class X [Some_Type]" vs. "class X [Some_Type -> >> Other_Type]" thing? You can have a generic class where the formal can >> be any class, or you can require the formal to be a subclass of some >> particular class. >> >> - Bob /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com