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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,56131a5c3acc678e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-09 08:42:06 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:41:56 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Question about OO programming in Ada
References: <QkSAb.1580$kz2.304@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <kMydnQG-7v3Cn0miRTvUrg@rapidnet.com>
 <UPWAb.2300$kz2.1329@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <bef8tvo3p8cfuonp8vvvh1ramr49di9t14@4ax.com>
 <1070889942.156714@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <l019tvocr60pcqsl5rsri3j4vabdt647fn@4ax.com>
 <5lcBb.4138$UM4.2773@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <j41btvght3vchvhhhjvvqhe2h49mtinmfh@4ax.com>
 <1070976556.767919@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <mumbtvgts988u9vdrbjqhmd4o43nf0176o@4ax.com>
 <1070982307.973327@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <7krbtv4bs50bm5gmdquteo3r0705ps58jt@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <7krbtv4bs50bm5gmdquteo3r0705ps58jt@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1070988116.464651@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@aphelion.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1070988116  1442 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3279
Date: 2003-12-09T11:41:56-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> So what?

So it's somewhat iconoclastic to regard the function as
the focus of the dispatching. You're doing it because you
are still pushing for your external fat-pointer dispatch
mechanism, which is why you decry the ability to redispatch.

I rememeber the old discussion, but people who don't aren't
going to understand what you're fussing about, since the
dispatch table implementation mechanism is fixed in many
minds as the very definition of OO.

> If the type tag gets changed, then the type does as well.

Yes, absolutely.

> For an object of *same* type a dispatch to *same* method
 > should yeld same target.

Yes, absolutely.

> It is not the case for C++.

No, that's wrong. It *is* the case for C++.

> The target in constructor / destructor or their callee is same
 > as if the method were not dispatching.

No, that's wrong as well. Did you look at my sample code?
Calls to virtual functions are always dispatching. The type
used to dispatch upon may vary during the course of construction.

> So I claim again, if it "dispatches" as a type-specific
> call, then it is type specific.

I don't understand what this sentence means.