From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: abstract types and subprograms
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 14:49:55 -0400
Date: 2014-05-24T14:49:55-04:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wcck39bdnak.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1xpqa3ak5k59r$.ncugtl37io47.dlg@40tude.net
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> I disagree. There is no need for instances of abstract objects, as there is
> no need of extension aggregates. There should be proper constructors
> instead.
You've said that many times, but I've never seen a detailed description
of what you mean. (Sorry if I missed it -- I don't read newsgroups
regularly.) Can you please show us your language design for "proper
constructors"?
It seems like something like extension aggregates are needed -- you
need a way to create an object of a type, given the value of
an ancestor, and the values of the extension components.
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-24 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-20 10:22 abstract types and subprograms Victor Porton
2014-05-20 10:51 ` mockturtle
2014-05-20 11:45 ` Victor Porton
2014-05-20 16:27 ` Robert A Duff
2014-05-20 19:52 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2014-05-24 18:49 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2014-05-24 19:41 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2014-05-20 11:55 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2014-05-20 12:28 ` Victor Porton
2014-05-20 14:11 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox