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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,436e4ce138981b82 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-07 05:36:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!zeus.visi.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!nnx.oleane.net!oleane!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Amado Alves Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: abstract sub programs overriding Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:39:25 +0000 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <5f59677c.0403021101.4ac263d0@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1078666519 12022 212.85.156.195 (7 Mar 2004 13:35:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:35:19 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2004 13:34:56.0763 (UTC) FILETIME=[FAF36CB0:01C40448] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6118 Date: 2004-03-07T13:39:25+00:00 On Sunday 07 March 2004 12:35, Simon Wright wrote: > Marius Amado Alves writes: > > It's very simple, really: you can only call concrete, and of course > > available, operations. > ... > I'm sure this explanation isn't right.... > > I agree that putting it in the private part is perhaps misleading, but > that doesn't mean it's wrong -- we need a lawyer! Yes. The subtleties of Ada OOP. I stand corrected. I offered a solution using a subset where the simple rule above is true. I had the impression that this was sufficient for the original poster. Sami, sorry if I misunderstood. I'll be silent on full power Ada OOP, as clearly I don't master it. (Consistently, I never use it. And I don't feel I'm loosing much. Too convoluted. But that's another story.)