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,d1df6bc3799debed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical, Date: 1997/05/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 242153452 Distribution: world References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com> <5kl9qc$g4d@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <5kmek2$9re@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <33727FA5.5C7A@sprintmail.com> <3374C19F.15FE@sprintmail.com> <3376CF85.3E15@sprintmail.com> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Many people still feel this decision was a mistake. Tagged is an odd word, > and it is awkward when people ask if Ada has classes to have to mumble a > bit. But in retrospect it is relatively unimportant, and I ssympathize As long as we are on about this sort of stuff, do you recall what the reason was for using the "record" syntax with tagged types? Again, not a big deal, but it seems kinda odd. Why not simply: type T is tagged ... end T; type C is new T with ... end C; type D is new T with null; Why the "record" syntax. Especially since tagged types are more different from records than similar (extensible, dispatchable primitive ops, maintain composability of user defined equal, ...) /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com