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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,66fae8c862b81b17
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.224.111.140 with SMTP id s12mr2670921qap.5.1351953257213;
        Sat, 03 Nov 2012 07:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.28.45 with SMTP id y13mr836580vdg.10.1351953257193; Sat, 03
 Nov 2012 07:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 gf5ni18188417qab.0!nntp.google.com!c7no4714841qap.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 07:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <op.wm56yo11ule2fv@cardamome>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.65.97.192;
 posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.65.97.192
References: <1aWdnbcg_8-BzAzNnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <k6rk3m$fu6$1@dont-email.me>
 <559eb706-9bb1-496d-9034-1984d693531a@googlegroups.com>
 <op.wm48fcpwule2fv@cardamome>
 <5460fdc7-5490-4889-b771-67cc281c10c5@googlegroups.com>
 <op.wm56yo11ule2fv@cardamome>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f37a66a6-3cca-4f4c-85ce-efb95ca4af57@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Copy vector in Ada
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 14:34:17 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-11-03T07:34:17-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

W dniu sobota, 3 listopada 2012 00:45:55 UTC+1 u=C5=BCytkownik Hibou57 (Yan=
nick Duch=C3=AAne) napisa=C5=82:

> > Similarly in C++ - if the assignment operator is too costly (or just =
=20
> > impossible) to implement, there is a way to ban it.
>=20
> Really? That's a hot news to me. At least at the time I used it (~ 2000),=
 =20
> there was nothing like that,

Then you should prepare for an even hotter news: it was "there" always.

> And I'm not even sure there was a way to redefine the copy operation

It was "there" always. The ability to redefine copy operation is a fundamen=
tal part of data abstraction. You would not even be able to implement such =
basic things like a string class without this functionality.
 =20
I would even say that C++ has a more elegant solution for this problem, as =
the ability to redefine the assignment operation is orthogonal to other par=
ts of the language and does not interfere with things like polymorphism. Al=
so, banning and redefining are handled in the consistent way (hey, they *ar=
e* related issues!), while in Ada these two are done in completely distinct=
 ways - one requires a keyword, while the other requires a derivation from =
some magic type. Yuck.

--=20
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com