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: 1997/04/26
Message-ID: <mheaney-ya023680002604971931400001@news.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237622982
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning>
 <335F5971.6375@elca-matrix.ch> <E95y9L.AK1@world.std.com>
 <dewar.861930356@merv> <E973qr.89t@world.std.com>
 <01bc5244$315f1560$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> <dewar.862079014@merv>
Organization: Estormza Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.862079014@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

><<As to the property of mutual exclusion - this is the 'essence' of the case
>statement - the implementation would probably have to test ...>>
>
>This is only 50% of the essence. The other half is full coverage, which can
>have no meaning for extended case statements - so I think it is a bad idea
>to try to extend case statements to non-discrete types.

Ah, Robert brings order to chaos.  I heartily agree.  There are *much* more
important issues to consider than changing case statements so that they
work for non-discrete types.

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