Re: *\\~record depth~//*

[Mario Amado Alves <maa@di.fct.unl.pt>]

The structure may in fact happen in real problems, e.g. lexical
knowledge bases, default inheritance networks.

You know you can write

  type Component_List is array (Component'Range)

instead of

  type Component_List is array (Component'First..Component'Last)

.


On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, G wrote:

>  Message from the Deja.com forum: 
>  comp.lang.ada
>  Your subscription is set to individual email delivery
> > 
>   I am still learning (autodidactically) what is probably painfully
> silly and simple to many of you.
> However - I use the Gnat compiler to learn what is possible (though
> not necessarily sensible) in Ada.
> 
>   Some time ago Matt Heaney explained to me here that a record
> declaration
> must only contain elements which are delimited (perhaps not in those
> exact words)
>    I was playing with types tonight and I found that I could extend one
> tagged record such that I may
> include the record from which it was extended in its element list.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> package Problem is
> 
>               -- a PROBLEM is defined by its COMPONENTs and their
> ACTIONs.
> 
>   type Component is (Single, Dependent, Group);           -- for e.g.
>   type Component_List is array (Component'First..Component'Last) of
> Component;
> 
>             -- type Action is (Direct, Indirect); --
> 
>   type Simple_Problem is tagged
>   record
>     Unit : Component;          --  a Unit
>   end record;
> 
>   type Complex_Problem is new Simple_Problem with
>   record
>     Simple_Structure : Component_List;          -- deeper STRUCTURE
>     Simple_Recursive_Reference : Simple_Problem;
>   end record;
> 
>   type Compound_Problem is new Complex_Problem with
>   record
>     Complex_Structure : Component_List;           -- even deeper
> STRUCTURE
>     Complex_Recursive_Reference : Complex_Problem;
>   end record;
> 
> end Problem;
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I would have thought (my grasp of symbolic logic being as admittedly
> limited
> as it is) that placing a Simple_Problem within the Complex_Problem type
> would fluff with the compiler, but it didn't.  So, obviously one may do
> this sort of thing 'legally' in Ada.
> 
> Would there be any programming situations where this sort of thing would
> apply
> or is it toally irrelevant ?  If records are included within
> abstractions of themselves
> would that make it unneccessarily complex to assign properties to
> instances
> of the records/objects ?
> 
> possibility 1) - you will tell me it is totally silly
> 
> possibility 2) - you will tell me some horrendously complex tale of
> syntax and simpler ways of doing
>                       precisely the same things.
> 
> I am just wondering out loud and as I have this wonderful facility of
> communication with the
> boffins I thought I would ask.
> 
> 
> -Graeme
> -Australia
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  _____________________________________________________________
>  Deja.com: Before you buy.
>  http://www.deja.com/
>  * To modify or remove your subscription, go to
>  http://www.deja.com/edit_sub.xp?group=comp.lang.ada
>  * Read this thread at
>  http://www.deja.com/thread/%3C3826DFBF.52AC2680%40interact.net.au%3E
> 

| | |,| | | | |RuaFrancTaborda24RcD 2815-249CharnecaCaparica 351+212976751
| |M|A|R|I|O| |                                              mob 219354005
| |A|M|A|D|O| |DepartmentoInformaticFCT/UNL 2825-114Caparica 351+212958536
| |A|L|V|E|S| |                                              fax 212948541
| | | | | | | |               maa@di.fct.unl.pt              FCT 212948300



 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
 Before you buy.