Re: "Must instantiate controlled types at library level." Why?

["Xenos" <dont.spam.me@spamhate.com>]

"Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:1676457.GMYvKY1ieA@linux1.krischik.com...
> Freejack wrote:
> Simple Mantra: 'Class behaves like String.
>
> If you compare with C/C++: You always have to uses char* pointers since
> C/C++ has no equivalent for String.

Wrong.  C++ has a string class in its standard library.  Its a lot more
versitile than Ada's String type.
>
> In C an array is either definite "int X[10]" or you use pointer. "int X[]"
> is only another syntax for "char*" since there is no 'First and 'Last in
> C/C++. Ada however has indefinite types - so pointers arn't neede here.
>
Wrong.  In certain situations, an array will "degrade" to a pointer to its
element type.  As a function parameter int X[] will degrade to a constant
pointer to an integer, or int * const.  It is NEVER eqvilent to char*.  You
must be thinking of Classic C (before the standard) were a char* was used at
the generic pointer type before void* was introduced.  A generic pointer
will accept any type of (non-function) pointer, but is still not equivilent
to it.
It is only during degradation that an array end is unknown to the compiler.
C++ has the vector (et. al.) where .begin() and .end() are equivalent to
'First and 'Last.

> Also you use pointers because C/C++ has no "out" or "in out". Ada however
> decides itself if call by value or call by reference is needed. So no
> pointers needed here as well.
Wrong.  C++ has reference types are equivalent to "in out."  Constant
reference types may be used for "in."

If you don't understand a language, you don't have any grounds to lambaste
it.