From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Subject: Re: References vs access types
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 16:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2019-05-31T16:55:01-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aec08768-ac61-4f6d-83b6-e3e07d9ced41@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <qcrmap$j58$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Am Freitag, 31. Mai 2019 18:55:57 UTC+2 schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov:
> My preferences list would be:
>
> #1 - Never, visually ugly, semantically questionable, lacking
> transparent access to the target object and technically not a reference
> at all, plus unstable with GNAT compilers
>
> #2 - Construction of new stand-alone objects (frequently class-wide),
> implementation-dependent stuff
>
> #3 - Access to a component of an existing object
>
> As for hidden traps, only #3 is safe upon inheritance, if primitive
> operation and thus covariant.
I'm quite opposed to Dmitry.
I admit that #1 is clumsy. But see Gem 123 to learn how this syntax may be improved with some aspects.
(Compiler problems are never an argument to avoid some feature forever.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-31 23:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-31 15:44 References vs access types Alejandro R. Mosteo
2019-05-31 16:55 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2019-05-31 23:55 ` AdaMagica [this message]
2019-05-31 23:56 ` AdaMagica
2019-05-31 21:33 ` Randy Brukardt
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox