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: 103376,56dbd715fa74735a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Mutually dependent private types Date: 1998/05/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 355644766 References: <6k4b7t$vhn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 895866555 28477 bpr 206.184.139.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-05-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 22 May 1998 adam@irvine.com wrote: > Matthew Heaney wrote: > > ... snip ... > > > I read John's paper, but I don't find his argument convincing. Doesn't the > > following code solve the putative with'ing "problem"? > > I think John's objection to this solution is that it requires a > runtime check to make sure the second parameter has the correct type. Yes, if you're willing to lose static typing, I don't see that you have any right to complain about access types or unchecked ops. I don't think that I'd switch languages over this issue :-), but its definitely a flaw in my eyes. I rather like the package parts approach mentioned in John's paper, since there I've had other problems that they'd solve, but its unlikely that such a drastic modification to Ada will take place. There was some discussion of proposals a while ago, and this question comes up very frequently on c.l.a. I hope this issue will be addressed in Ada 200X. -- Brian