From: "Michael B." <michaelb@example.com>
Subject: Re: Tagged type abuse
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 13:39:41 +0100
Date: 2014-12-20T13:39:41+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m73qm9$2cd$1@speranza.aioe.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: m72ek2$nnj$1@loke.gir.dk
Sounds like a reasonable change. Thanks for clarifying.
Regards,
Michael
On 12/20/14 01:07, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> In Ada 83-2005, untagged record types compose using a reimergence of
> predefined "=" (the user-defined "=" is ignored in that case). That was not
> changed in Ada 95 because of compatibility concerns. But the problem wasn't
> going away, and having an aspect to do the right thing made no sense and
> having an aspect to do the wrong thing helps no-one (the code would have to
> be modified, but if you can do that, you might as well fix it). So we just
> changed it. We think that 99% of the time, people would rather have the
> user-defined "=" used (why else would you have defined it?)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-20 12:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-18 11:26 Tagged type abuse Natasha Kerensikova
2014-12-18 13:01 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2014-12-18 16:59 ` Jeffrey Carter
2014-12-18 23:10 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-12-19 12:42 ` Michael B.
2014-12-20 0:07 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-12-20 12:39 ` Michael B. [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox