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: 103376,2308afbbe4ecec0b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ray Blaak Subject: Re: Subverting 'Access for Sub-programs Date: 1999/08/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 509476655 Sender: blaak@vault83.infomatch.bc.ca References: <7ocqru$rrm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Trace: news.bctel.net 933918701 207.34.170.83 (Thu, 05 Aug 1999 22:51:41 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 22:51:41 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Complaints-To: news@bctel.net Date: 1999-08-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > But it is pretty fundamental and obvious that a tagged type > cannot be extended in a temporary inner scope, no? It is not fundamental and obvious to me. Perhaps you could explain. I am aware of implementation concerns with allowing such a thing, but the restriction seems is an exception to the generality of declaring Ada constructs that is usually allowed. One can declare types, exceptions, variables, and routines anywhere, except for tagged types. This restriction prevents a completely localized programming style when doing OO stuff. Is the issue downward closures again? I would really like to see them allowed. Things like localized iterators could be done in a natural way. The current practice of knowing that some things have to be defined at the library level is not something that is obvious when reading sources, and is something that just seems to be part of the Ada lore. -- Cheers, The Rhythm is around me, The Rhythm has control. Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me, blaak@infomatch.com The Rhythm has my soul.