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: 103376,772ae8afc5db35f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Single Extension; Polymorphic Arrays
Date: 1999/03/08
Message-ID: <m3d82k2yoz.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 452489882
Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net
References: <m3678k6v1x.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <F7zxxG.1EI@syd.csa.com.au>
 <7bju1u$q23$1@plug.news.pipex.net> <7bk6gf$6d9$1@plug.news.pipex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:02:21 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-03-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes:

> I wrote in message <7bju1u$q23$1@plug.news.pipex.net>...
> |It dawns on me that Ada provides special syntax for singletons of two
> |particular kinds of types: tasks and protected objects.
> 
> Three types, of course: tasks, protected objects, and arrays.


Yes, and this is a feature of the language that adds unnecessary
complexity.  You shouldn't be trying to duplicate it - you should be
trying to get rid of it.

You don't need singleton tasks, or protected objects, or arrays, because
you can use existing mechanism to do the job (ie declare a type, and
then declare one instance of the type).