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,dbcfe2b0a74da57e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Inherited Methods and such
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:42:41 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccsl4xvy1a.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <1190296353.624737.150940@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
 <11m13st1f92kf$.m8s6y8mc8ebk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1190321119.206313.65290@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
 <egz670qwxgyj$.15oz5zin5794w$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1190408526.100291.265040@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
 <9ukf2wtqjs0q$.iuijmal4x56b$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1190497995.498679.119190@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
 <1mw3qju08q8uj.sgzht7ld9ydc$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1190579805.451187.71140@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
 <1i8ksr774bjbj.vpmnx3c0i9qz.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1190646125.024072.310020@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
 <1r9s9v6pcjifl.vp4ktk0unpd1.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1190753631.240548.101820@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
 <wcck5qdpq92.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1190843408.713838.128690@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wccps02fw9v.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <wcchclefuge.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1191012272.457766.273330@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1191109361 4565 192.74.137.71 (29 Sep 2007 23:42:41
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:42:41 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+pvFwV9iP6+stMrtHZcNECgY3yk=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2230
Date: 2007-09-29T19:42:41-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> writes:

> On 28 Wrz, 21:42, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's an example.  What do you think?
>
> Perfect! I wasn't aware of the possibility to use return to achieve
> this "progressive" construction process.
> I knew this form of return, but not the gory details of how tags are
> assigned.
>
>> Do you revise your opinion that
>> Ada doesn't properly support constructors?
>
> Yes, this example is convincing.

Good to hear.  :-)

> How would you recommend using this pattern with controlled types?
>
> I might need controlled for the finalization part - do you recommend
> ignoring the Initialize operation in this case?

Not sure.  Probably ignorable in most cases.
Note that Initialize defers abort, which might be
interesting in some programs.

As for finalization, I'm not sure it's exactly the reverse of
initialization.  For initialization, you're creating something
out of whole cloth ("raw bits").  But for finalization, you're
not turning anything into raw bits, and you can program defensively
(e.g. make sure Finalize works when called twice on the same
object).

- Bob