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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,90108ed846e3f1bf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Why constructing functions is a mess [was Language lawyer
  question: task activation
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <ccf8fc4b-80e3-4732-84e3-16c4e2d10c3d@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
  <1dusr7frk73m7.nlsagplge0hk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <09a7aab3-d105-4a40-b25b-e2824cb12f89@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <rv6zobw6fror.csu22kh631qi$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <24bdd0df-9554-49de-9c5e-99572c9cdf34@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <d1d318e7-9cd8-4f28-9cc8-afa3752e711e@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <1v0f2pkso7p50.vein84avao5t.dlg@40tude.net>
 <499ede41$0$32665$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1lhxmo6l2ypux.bei2ffp1m3e$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <499f2c59$0$31868$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1vcaimc8kjj30$.kf3rsd670ebp$.dlg@40tude.net> <go9t07$lht$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1gxn72yzshp07$.6ytqydmmz37u.dlg@40tude.net>
 <49a92c29$0$32670$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1wzjy9pzbft1m.1lut7nszfkzmp$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <9a74a1ed-cb45-45f9-8e07-25c6340a22d8@x13g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:23:25 +0100
Message-ID: <letmeuqsisl5.1wpmf951gibq2.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 01 Mar 2009 09:23:28 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: d7257acb.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=G7=]dh^f7_1NTD<CL>55K=ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9kSWNOGa<dj8DNcfSJ;bb[5IRnRBaCd<M>N7hZhaieGH3G\fW6]7:1;3
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4834
Date: 2009-03-01T09:23:28+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:12:17 -0800 (PST), Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> On 28 Lut, 14:45, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
> 
>>> class T
>>> {
>>> public:
>>> � virtual void op() = 0;
>>> private:
>>> � T(char constraint) : c(constraint) {}
>>> � char c;
>>> };
>>
>> No, the constructor in the example must be public.
> 
> It can be also *protected* (which in C++ means hidden from the world,
> but exposed to derived types) and I think this would better fit what
> you try to explain.

Right.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de