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,f868292008c639ce
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: 'img
Date: 2000/05/26
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005261106490.23036-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 627678286
References: <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
 <8en5o9$ihe$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8eonos$e70$1@wanadoo.fr>
 <yec1z3jkq9z.fsf@king.cts.com> <1fIU4.4668$Rx3.250161@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>
 <dale-FF1F1A.14272618052000@news.rmit.edu.au> <wcc8zx7ua2y.fsf@world.std.com>
 <8g8p31$a2s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <wccr9auk6ci.fsf@world.std.com>
 <8ggjg3$hbq$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <8gh9lr$ppe$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <8ghcbh$rnj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8gj50o$igs$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <8glmf7$usg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 959364968 214 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 26 May 2000 dmitry@gandalf.atm.fh-luebeck.de wrote:
> In article <8gj50o$igs$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,
>   Peter Hermann <ica2ph@iris16.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> > Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> >
> > All the attributes could be some more polymorphic, user inheritable, etc.
> 
> As well as constructor, destructor and assignment (for untagged types),
> aggregate (for non-records), 'access attribute (for GC?) and etc. (:-))

I agree that extending assignment and finalization to untagged types would 
be nice, but I don't think its quite as easy as "for ... use" clauses on
attributes :-). And, to be truthful, while I love proposing Ada extensions 
as much as the next guy, I haven't found this lack to be particularly
painful, nor have I found the general crumminess of 'Image to be that bad. 
I roll my own and use functional syntax for Image. I guess everyone has
their own set of "rough edges" that they feel need polishing :-).

-- Brian