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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fa2cc518ef3b992c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: tagged types extensions - language design question
Date: 2000/01/28
Message-ID: <s91denm47q5148@corp.supernews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 578474552
References: <s90mu0hg7q538@corp.supernews.com>
 <ER_j4.621$Sa2.16708@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Date: 2000-01-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew Heaney wrote in message ...
>In article <s90mu0hg7q538@corp.supernews.com> , "Vladimir Olensky"
><vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Why don't you just declare these types in separate packages?


This is  :
1.  an additional step
2.  an additional package
3.  an additional level of inheritance.

That's why I was asking why it is not allowed to do this in one step as in
other OOP languages. Probably there exist some reasons for that.

Though GNAT provides efficient dispatching mechanism it is better to
minimize inheritance depth for derived types when possible.
Also creating additional  packages  just to  provide visible fields for
private
tagged type  is not handy.

Actually I was using additional packages but to my point of view this is not
very convenient.

Regards,
Vladimir Olensky