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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e429176c9adb07b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-19 04:50:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [OT] Best way to isolate a GUI? Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 07:49:07 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <3E511C15.1040404@acm.org> <3E5121BD.4010200@cogeco.ca> <3E51A55A.3000101@cogeco.ca> <3E52A1BF.1020809@cogeco.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.bd.03 X-Server-Date: 19 Feb 2003 12:50:19 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:34224 Date: 2003-02-19T12:50:19+00:00 List-Id: Why would you want to use a variant record when a tagged type solves the problem so much more elegantly? I've always found variant records to be a pain in the posterior - in particular as noted by Randy that you have to define everything in one place. If you wanted to pass back to an app various events (or widget data, for that matter) it would seem that a base class of some sort of "event" or "message" would be the place to start. You then build up from that class the specific events or messages you need in separate packages. If something gets added on top that message catalog, you're not impacting anything else and the extension doesn't force recompilation of the whole world. Short of possibly efficiency concerns or representation issues, I just don't see much excuse for variant records when we've got tagged types. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds." -- H. Simpson ====================================================================== Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote in message news:3E52A1BF.1020809@cogeco.ca... > > You brought some interesting points to the discussion, but none > that would convince me that variant records are unsuitable for > the job. The only point that came close IMHO was the possible > overhead factor. That was a good point, but in my mind, probably > not enough reason to avoid it. >