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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: leschkes@ferret.cig.mot.com (Scott Leschke) Subject: Re: Real OO Date: 1996/03/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 143599090 references: <4id031$cf9@dayuc.dayton.saic.com> <314f6cf8.682571966@news.dimensional.com> <4ip7eb$66v@dayuc.dayton.saic.com> organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John G. Volan writes: >Of course it's prudent to be wary of generalization -- or rather, it's >prudent to be wary of slavish devotion to generalization. What I should >have said was: "If an operation isn't explicitly a primitive, then the >default choice ought to be to make it classwide. Making it specific to >the root type is still a possibility, but that choice should carefully >reasoned, and the justifications for it should be documented." How does one declare syntactically that an operation is SPECIFIC to a type within a class, as opposed to being either a primitive of that type or class-wide? I've also wondered if there was any way to explicitly declare an operation as invariant within a class and hence, non-overridable. -- Scott Leschke.........................email: leschkes@cig.mot.com Motorola, Inc............................ph: 847-632-2786 1501 W Shure Drive......................fax: 847-632-3145 Arlington Heights, IL 60004......mailstop: 1301