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: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 237423109 References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning> <335E0B1F.12C9@elca-matrix.ch> <335F5971.6375@elca-matrix.ch> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >One of the problems arises in the treatment of private types. I often find >it a problem that I want to redefine operators in the public view for those >who see only the private type, but in the body it is a nuisance to have these >operators around anyway. Yes, I agree. This would be a very nice feature to have. You can always resort to derivation, though, so that you can view the "predefined" version of the type. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271