Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!newstand.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!uucp5.uu.net!alexandria.organon.com!alexandria!jsa
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
In-Reply-To: donh@syd.csa.com.au's message of Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:59:32 GMT
Message-ID: <JSA.97Jan17150832@alexandria>
Sender: news@organon.com (news)
Organization: Organon Motives, Inc.
References: <32DB90DC.41C67EA6@innocon.com> <E42nv9.LL7@syd.csa.com.au>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:08:32 GMT
Lines: 23
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:241146 comp.lang.smalltalk:49322 comp.lang.eiffel:17416 comp.lang.ada:56109 comp.object:59962 comp.software-eng:52652

In article <E42nv9.LL7@syd.csa.com.au> donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes:

> Jeff Carter writes:
> 
> :> So, contrary to your claim, Ada *does* permit a form of broken polymorphism.
> :> 
> :Nonsense. This is a violation of an explicit precondition (that the
> :actual value associated with S be in the range of Sub_Integer).
> 
> It's both and it shows that Ada is not typesafe.

Sorry, Don.  You are in the weeds.  It shows absolutely nothing of the
kind.  Ada may or may not be "type safe" but your absurd example has
nothing to say on the matter.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

