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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7f2ce8bda9cae4ab
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: "Must instantiate controlled types at library level." Why?
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:47:01 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <c8vppl$ps$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <mailman.6.1084930076.334.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <av2ma0p9gf6j9anno2o2iott7pc9406mas@4ax.com>
 <c8fmb2$k7i$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <f6pma09ohrcd2jugpr908kq68qjb948c41@4ax.com>
 <c8kpot$r49$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <2h77beF9tvamU1@uni-berlin.de>
 <c8mkor$rlq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <2hb77mFabusrU1@uni-berlin.de>
 <c8smru$ed6$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <lot3b05om5842hpagr2nhvs2tiqvglu4e2@4ax.com>
 <c8t1h1$89k$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <bvt5b0lvoifq66l99t3u838ntbe8acb481@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1085500021 828 134.91.1.34 (25 May 2004
 15:47:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:47:01 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:819
Date: 2004-05-25T15:47:01+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:

: everything one might wish to do with a finite set of elements
: can be done using a plain sequence of statements. So when you ask why
: one needs class-wide programs instead of generic ones, then answer is
: - no more than loop statements instead of code above.
:  [...]
: It is nothing else than I propose - an ability to *easily* create a
: user-defined type [...]

I'm beginning to undestand ;-) You should really consider one
of the offerings on the language market that has what you seem
to want: making things easy to write. ;-)  But that's not Ada, or
the languages in its class, right?

: It is a mess.
 
But a well defined one?  A slot in CLOS may or may not be
type-checked according to some CLOS description...


-- Georg