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-Thread: 103376,db88d0444fafe8eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!easynet-monga!easynet.net!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!feed1.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!xara.net!gxn.net!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Surprise in array concatenation
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 05:43:24 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m2slwgkw43.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <1125544603.561847.32140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <14muavojz308w.1ouv7xin79rqu$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <87fyspgqrm.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <wcczmqwepmb.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <j50hfd.l2a.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <zSFTe.4078$wk6.1150@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
 <75KTe.5$1r.0@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1126154600 24894 62.49.19.209 (8 Sep 2005 04:43:20
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 04:43:20 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bZ/G31cgA8HuXv066usp9O+FfQM=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4515
Date: 2005-09-08T05:43:24+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> writes:

> adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> I have heard it expressed at some software-oriented conferences that
>> enumerated types represent an old-fashioned way of thinking about
>> software design.  Some in the OO community believe that, because
>> enumerated types are not extensible, they actually thwart good OO
>> design.
>
> How can an implementation technique thwart good design?

That was "good *OO* design".

We have been developing using UML-based OO techniques, but it is quite
hard using this sort of technology to cover the sort of important
questions you would answer in a system/subsystem design document (see
for example http://www.pogner.demon.co.uk/mil_498/ssdd-did.htm#scope),
and which don't depend so much -- if at all -- on the software
technology.

On UML features, by the way -- a picture may be worth a thousand
words, but a sizable sequence diagram is very hard to grasp, and don't
get me started on activity diagrams!