Re: Idiom for a class and an object in Ada

[Michael Paus <pausnospam@nospamib-paus.com>]

Matthew Heaney wrote:

> "Michael Paus" <pausnospam@nospamib-paus.com> wrote in message 
> news:cl6395$g1l$1@online.de...
> 
>>You have chosen to use a tagged type to represent your A/D converters
>>which I think is a wise decision but neither you nor anybody else
>>seems to be able to give a good reason for that (if I have not missed it 
>>:-)
>>and also in the way you have started you are missing an opportunity
>>for flexibility in your design and for really exploiting your OO approach.
> 
> 
> How are you able to evaluate whether the use of a tagged type is a "wise 
> decision" unless you have been given reasons why the type is tagged?

According to my experience in similar situations the use of tagged types
offers more flexibility than other approaches and I therefore think it is
a wise decision.

> My judgement about the fact that the type is tagged and nonlimited is that 
> this is a very *unwise* decision.

Your opinion without an explanation.

> There is no reason for the type to be tagged unless you need type extension 
> or dynamic binding.

I think I have explained already why you do need type extension here.

> There is no reason why the global objects' type should have assignment.

I did not say anything about assignment.

> There is no reason why the global objects' type should allow anyone to 
> create instances anywhere.

I also did not say anthing about that. You can hide that in a factory package.