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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,900edaa189af2033 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada95 OOP Questions Date: 1996/08/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 173143680 references: <4u7h1r$jrn@mailsrv2.erno.de> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Duff said "Agreed. But the language designers can't think of everything, so it may well be that there some rules that really should be absolute, and yet didn't get into the language. I can't think of any at the moment (in the case of Ada 95). ;-)" Yes, indeed, it is useful if people realize that whenever they feel like imposing an absolute style rule, they are in fact commenting on the language design, and declaring that some aspect of it was wrong. Now there is nothing unreasonable about making such a conclusion, but you need to invest some effort to understand why a feature is in the language. It was not put there for idle amusement. If you propose a style rule "never use feature X", then it is quite likely the case that you are simply unaware of some important use of feature X. For example, I have now seen several Ada environments in which the Ada style rule is "never use unchecked conversion", and as a result, pieces of the program are written in C which could perfectly well be written in Ada.