* User defined boolean
@ 2000-10-29 0:41 Daniel Allex
2000-10-29 1:22 ` Ken Garlington
2000-10-30 1:02 ` DuckE
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Allex @ 2000-10-29 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
I created a type PASS_FLAG that is an enumeration type of FAIL and
PASS. I have seven funtions that each return PASS_FLAG, and I wanted to
AND them together an print out the result. My flag wont work with
either AND or "+". Can this be done or should I just use the predefined
boolean. I had reasons for defining my own enumeration type.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: User defined boolean
2000-10-29 0:41 User defined boolean Daniel Allex
@ 2000-10-29 1:22 ` Ken Garlington
2000-10-30 1:02 ` DuckE
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ken Garlington @ 2000-10-29 1:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Daniel Allex" <dallex@erols.com> wrote in message
news:39FB723B.25D05446@erols.com...
: I created a type PASS_FLAG that is an enumeration type of FAIL and
: PASS. I have seven funtions that each return PASS_FLAG, and I wanted to
: AND them together an print out the result. My flag wont work with
: either AND or "+". Can this be done or should I just use the predefined
: boolean. I had reasons for defining my own enumeration type.
:
When you say "my flag won't work with AND," I assume you mean that it won't
work with the "and" function defined for Boolean. Since Pass_Flag is of a
different type than Boolean, then you probably shouldn't expect it to work
when called with values of type Pass_Flag. Have you tried declaring an "and"
function for Pass_Flag?
(P.S. It may help if you post a sample package describing what you are
trying to do...)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: User defined boolean
2000-10-29 0:41 User defined boolean Daniel Allex
2000-10-29 1:22 ` Ken Garlington
@ 2000-10-30 1:02 ` DuckE
2000-10-30 1:58 ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: DuckE @ 2000-10-30 1:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
You can certainly override the built in AND and OR operations to work for
your new type:
type Pass_Flag is (Fail, Pass);
function "AND" ( Left, Right : Pass_Flag ) return Boolean is
begin
return (Left = Pass) and (Right = Pass);
end "AND";
function "OR" ( Left, Right : Pass_Flag ) return Boolean is
begin
return (Left = Pass) or (Right = Pass);
end "OR";
SteveD
"Daniel Allex" <dallex@erols.com> wrote in message
news:39FB723B.25D05446@erols.com...
> I created a type PASS_FLAG that is an enumeration type of FAIL and
> PASS. I have seven funtions that each return PASS_FLAG, and I wanted to
> AND them together an print out the result. My flag wont work with
> either AND or "+". Can this be done or should I just use the predefined
> boolean. I had reasons for defining my own enumeration type.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: User defined boolean
2000-10-30 1:02 ` DuckE
@ 2000-10-30 1:58 ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-31 3:56 ` DuckE
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-10-30 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <3N3L5.30691$E85.782438@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
"DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com> wrote:
> You can certainly override the built in AND and OR operations
> to work for your new type:
Bad terminology! This has nothing whatsoever to do with
overriding, since surely there ARE no AND/OR operations
for the type, so what the above *should* say is simply
"You can certainly define AND and OR operations to work for
your new type (whatever your definition of working might be!)"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: User defined boolean
2000-10-30 1:58 ` Robert Dewar
@ 2000-10-31 3:56 ` DuckE
2000-10-31 19:48 ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: DuckE @ 2000-10-31 3:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
You're absolutely right! I meant to say "overload" not "override".
SteveD
"Robert Dewar" <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tikk1$g7q$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3N3L5.30691$E85.782438@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
> "DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com> wrote:
> > You can certainly override the built in AND and OR operations
> > to work for your new type:
>
> Bad terminology! This has nothing whatsoever to do with
> overriding, since surely there ARE no AND/OR operations
> for the type, so what the above *should* say is simply
>
> "You can certainly define AND and OR operations to work for
> your new type (whatever your definition of working might be!)"
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: User defined boolean
2000-10-31 3:56 ` DuckE
@ 2000-10-31 19:48 ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-10-31 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <VprL5.34497$E85.876306@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,
"DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com> wrote:
> You're absolutely right! I meant to say "overload" not
> "override".
Ah yes, sorry, I should have figured that out, and yes, of
course overload is exactly the right term!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-10-31 19:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-10-29 0:41 User defined boolean Daniel Allex
2000-10-29 1:22 ` Ken Garlington
2000-10-30 1:02 ` DuckE
2000-10-30 1:58 ` Robert Dewar
2000-10-31 3:56 ` DuckE
2000-10-31 19:48 ` Robert Dewar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox