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,c3a7c1845ec5caf9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney)
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/04/25
Message-ID: <mheaney-ya023680002504972002170001@news.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237418714
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning> <E91zFw.KDE@world.std.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680002204972109430001@news.ni.net>
 <335E0B1F.12C9@elca-matrix.ch> <E93v4u.DG1@world.std.com>
 <335F5971.6375@elca-matrix.ch>
 <mheaney-ya023680002404971929220001@news.ni.net> <dewar.861971395@merv>
Organization: Estormza Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.861971395@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

>Whenever you thnk that a general and obvious, and universally acceptable
>principle such as the above one clearly argues for one side in a
>controversial issue, you are probably missing some subtleties!

Fair enough, but let me ask you this.  If you didn't have backwards
compatibility as a goal, then would you have made it the rule that types
compose whose equality operator had been redefined?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heaney
Software Development Consultant
<mailto:matthew_heaney@acm.org>
(818) 985-1271