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,c3a7c1845ec5caf9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/04/26
Message-ID: <dewar.862054311@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237504275
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning> <E91zFw.KDE@world.std.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680002204972109430001@news.ni.net>
 <335E0B1F.12C9@elca-matrix.ch> <E93v4u.DG1@world.std.com>
 <335F5971.6375@elca-matrix.ch>
 <mheaney-ya023680002404971929220001@news.ni.net> <dewar.861971395@merv>
 <mheaney-ya023680002504972002170001@news.ni.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew Heaney said

<<Fair enough, but let me ask you this.  If you didn't have backwards
compatibility as a goal, then would you have made it the rule that types
compose whose equality operator had been redefined?>>

I don't know -- depends whether we could have come up with a satisfactory
solution to the problems which lead to the decision in the first place. We
did not look hard, because of the compatibility issues. Bu there are
troublesome problems here ... see previous posts for hints ...