Re: abstract sub programs overriding

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:09:51 -0500, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> As a matter of fact, in Ada T and T'Class are different types. I tried
>> to explain you that the problem with constructors in C++ is rooted in
>> equalizing T and T'Class. That in your universe there is no such
>> distinction does not mend the problem.
>> 
>> ... this is why a two-stage construction is required for them. The
>> point is very simple - each type needs a constructor. So when T is
>> view-convertible to T'Class, then two constructors have to be applied:
>> one of T, one of T'Class. In the constructor of T you cannot dispatch,
>> in the constructor of T'Class you can do it safely.
>
>But this is not Ada, but AdaDK. In Ada, T'Class objects don't have
>their own constructors, or initializers, or anything. All T'Class
>objects are just a view of a (derived from) T object. Am I wrong?
>A declared T'Class object has to be initialized by a T actual,
>perhaps one returned by a T'Class function, where the return value
>must then be a T actual. A declared T'Class parameter is just a
>view of some T object.
>
>I think that once again you are making blanket statements which
>confuse, or conflate, aspects of Ada as they are and aspects of
>Ada as you wish they would be.

Any comparative consideration of object construction should be based
on this or that theory, which according to you always confuse and
conflate whatsoever aspects of a language X.

OK, let's add to the law of Moses:

C++ does everything right and anything else is not Ada.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de