From: "Grein, Christoph" <christoph.grein@eurocopter.com>
Subject: Re: Ada2005 temp solo child (was: Re: The Dreaded "Missing Subunits"
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:59:34 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: 2002-09-13T10:59:34+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.1031907902.8367.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org> (raw)
> While developing an application, I have e.g. a parent.child
> but not yet a parent package, which may or may come later.
> Now my compiler forces me to have the parent.
> I would prefer the ada standard would force the compiler
> to allow parentless children.
> Did I ignore some important aspect?
I do not know, but the request seems silly to me. Why is it so disturbing to create a
dummy parent, which is still empty. It has to be created anyway eventually, so
why not just now? If there will never be a parent, why have the hierarchy at
all?
next reply other threads:[~2002-09-13 8:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-13 8:59 Grein, Christoph [this message]
2002-09-13 10:24 ` Ada2005 temp solo child ica2ph
2002-09-13 10:40 ` Preben Randhol
2002-09-13 11:41 ` Peter Hermann
2002-09-13 13:50 ` Dr. Michael Paus
2002-09-13 15:29 ` Preben Randhol
2002-09-13 21:08 ` Randy Brukardt
2002-09-13 21:00 ` Stephen Leake
2002-09-13 16:06 ` Robert A Duff
2002-09-13 16:28 ` Preben Randhol
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-12 22:49 The Dreaded "Missing Subunits" Peter Richtmyer
2002-09-13 8:16 ` Peter Amey
2002-09-13 8:51 ` Ada2005 temp solo child (was: " Peter Hermann
2002-09-14 2:33 ` Robert A Duff
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox