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-Thread: 103376,b7d18bb54ce3f52
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.88.199 with SMTP id bi7mr1451574pab.17.1344284936152;
        Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 c10ni90573pbw.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: ms <m.siedlarek@nctz.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interface to aggregated type
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <e239a0b9-8f5c-41db-b0ea-a312a3fc4fac@googlegroups.com>
References: <8e844311-f470-4382-8acc-ffe30aee1c18@googlegroups.com>
 <pqmx0s03p9lk$.fbclercmsr1i.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.222.97.27
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1344284936 13817 127.0.0.1 (6 Aug 2012 20:28:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 20:28:56 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
In-Reply-To: <pqmx0s03p9lk$.fbclercmsr1i.dlg@40tude.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.222.97.27;
 posting-account=Qm6IFAoAAADLRMuMbYtLLXPPuIEGRdpu
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-08-06T13:28:55-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, August 6, 2012 9:43:22 PM UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:42:03 -0700 (PDT), ms wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Clearly `Request` aggregates `Header_Container`, as HTTP requests
> 
> > generally contain some set of headers.
> 
> > 
> 
> > My dilemma is - `Headers` package already provides some sort of
> 
> > `Header_Container` manipulation interface - procedures for inserting and
> 
> > deleting headers and functions to return them, but I want allow these
> 
> > operations also on container aggregated inside `Request` type (which is
> 
> > probably a private record).
> 
> 
> 
> If Request implements the interface of Header_Container and also aggregates
> 
> it, why don't you derive one from another?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dmitry A. Kazakov
> 
> http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

This is one of these "how did I missed that" ideas. Thanks!