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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b5ab7c96b188b59e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-14 01:03:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The "()" operator revisited. Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:09:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1074070989 13356442 212.79.194.116 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4386 Date: 2004-01-14T10:09:54+01:00 List-Id: On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:53:24 -0000, "amado.alves" wrote: >"You should begin to see why C++ templates don't come with a mechanism >to specify restrictions on parameters, and instead rely on seeing if >usage within the code is legal." > >Right, and on Future_Language we will have the best of both worlds: any degree of restriction on the parameter definition. Currently I simulate classes outside the established set with formal packages. Wrong, the Future Language will need no templates. (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de