From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: user-defined type conversion
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:30:50 +0200
Date: 2002-05-21T11:30:50+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <qc4keu05kjjl8kctptrm2ovfe3a8j9rfik@4ax.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3CE895D9.5F635D2A@acm.org
On Mon, 20 May 2002 06:21:24 GMT, Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org>
wrote:
>One cannot consider a numeric type declaration as declaring a number of
>overloaded functions with the same name as the type and parameters of
>every other numeric type because one can apply type conversions to
>numeric types not known at the point of the declaration.
Yes, but there is a question, why one should need that conversions? I
see only backward compatibility issues here. It is clear why it was
good for Ada 83, but it is IMO a bit outdated for Ada 0x. A better way
would be an explicitly instantiatable function like
Unchecked_Conversion or even just Unchecked_Conversion.
---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-21 9:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-19 7:44 user-defined type conversion Russ
2002-05-19 8:54 ` martin.m.dowie
2002-05-19 10:44 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
2002-05-19 18:29 ` Russ
2002-05-19 20:58 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
2002-05-19 21:12 ` Jeffrey Carter
2002-05-21 9:18 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2002-05-19 19:01 ` sk
2002-05-20 3:33 ` Russ
2002-05-20 19:27 ` Randy Brukardt
2002-05-20 19:45 ` David C. Hoos
2002-05-19 21:17 ` Jeffrey Carter
2002-05-20 3:25 ` Russ
2002-05-20 6:21 ` Jeffrey Carter
2002-05-21 9:30 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
[not found] ` <mailman.1021892102.6644.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
2002-05-20 19:26 ` Russ
2002-05-21 9:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2002-05-22 4:32 ` Russ
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox