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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,71fbc59f7794b9af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OO vs procedural References: <1146771650.465144.99370@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> From: Brian May Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 08:14:22 +1000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:btja7RDPhvbkVssw17paPDXioRw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au X-Trace: quokka.wn.com.au 1146780863 202.173.153.89 (5 May 2006 06:14:23 +0800) X-Complaints-To: abuse@westnet.com.au Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.waia.asn.au!202.72.130.18.MISMATCH!quokka.wn.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4079 Date: 2006-05-05T08:14:22+10:00 List-Id: >>>>> "kevin" == kevin cline writes: kevin> The authors then point out a describe a potential pitfall kevin> of this code -- that a derived type implementation may fail kevin> to call the base implementation. This is true. The kevin> authors fail to point out that this possibility could have kevin> been prevented by correct base class design. What is the potential error in the above code? I think I must have missed it. -- Brian May