Re: Ada2005

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <6ZMR7.38074$ER5.458476@rwcrnsc52>, tmoran@acm.org says...
>
>> >> Best example is the object oriented part, because it is not possible to
>> >> have constants as components.
>> Why would anyone want to? Isn't it rather stupid to allocate space in several
>> objects to a field that will always be the same? I understand why C++ does 

>  Not all records are designed de novo.  For instance, in interfacing to
>MS Windows you will find lots of places where a particular interface
>record field is a constant.

Yeah, I've run into that as well. But that and other such interface-specific
annoyances are adequately handled by putting that yucky interface into a package
that abstracts away such details (as I'm sure you are quite familiar with :-) ).
Ada provides enough help here by allowing you to predesignate the field's value
in the type declaration.

That issue really has nothing to do with why the feature exists in C++, which is
to provide for class-wide constants.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.