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: 1997/05/01
Message-ID: <dewar.862496571@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 238689232
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning>
 <mheaney-ya023680002204970006190001@news.ni.net>
 <335CAEFE.35DC@elca-matrix.ch> <E91zFw.KDE@world.std.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680002204972109430001@news.ni.net>
 <335E0B1F.12C9@elca-matrix.ch> <dewar.861851658@merv>
 <3365BC3E.54C5@elca-matrix.ch>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Mats said

<<My pronouncement is about Ada 95; Ada 83 was "clean" with respect to
equality because of the strict rules on its redefinition (if we don't
count the unexpected possibility of redefining it for non-limited types)
and the fact that it does not automatically compose when some component
is of a limited type.>>

Well I don't agree with your definition of clean at all, but from your
point of view, isn't the above a bit like saying, "this room is clean
except for the two heaps of rubbish in the middle of the floor".

The mechanism for redefinition of equality in Ada 83 is well defined.
The fact that someone did not expect it has no influence on the language
standard -- and more to the point, this mechanism is very widely used
in Ada 83 programs.