Re: Ada-Singleton-Why does it work like this?

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 26 Mar, 15:28, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

> > Can you defend the idea that creation does not belong to the type?
>
> I think I can. Creation cannot be expressed in terms of values of the type.
[...]

Makes sense.
What about... constructors? I mean the real ones.

In other mainstream languages (you know, those with curly braces ;-) )
and let's say in Ada 2015 as well, constructors are defined
*syntactically* within the type. If we consider the object creation as
something that does not belong to the type, then can we say that
having constructors in a type definition is just a convenient
distortion and not a clear expression of the *semantic* reality, where
constructor should be defined as the entity that is external to the
type?

Something like:

class X
{
public:
    void doThis();
    void doThat();
private:
    // ...
};

// imaginary constructor of type X
X()
{
    // make up the state of new object
}

What is "inside" or "outside" might have no sense in Ada, but in Ada
terms the problem can be expressed as whether constructors should be
primitive operations of the given type.

Just thinking aloud.

--
Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com

Database Access Library for Ada: www.inspirel.com/soci-ada