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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Thread: fac41,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,e0a59694a441eb7b
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,gid103376,gidfac41,gid1108a1,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-24 12:58:53 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: Anthony Weissenberger <aweissen@fastmail.fm.delete>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object
Subject: Re: OOP Language for OS Development
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:58:02 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <108lhm1k8hmtf1d@corp.supernews.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <95db0572.0404142153.431fd058@posting.google.com>
 <566e2bfb.0404181753.2844342f@posting.google.com>
 <ytOgc.39006$zm5.17464@nntpserver.swip.net>
 <c67sgr$2e0$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> <4088D574.2020503@tele2.fr>
 <c6ap5j$1nh$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>
 <d853834.0404230630.4c782a58@posting.google.com>
 <1082732696.152155@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <ba03b545.0404231408.3b4ffa2c@posting.google.com>
 <1082759585.818002@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
In-Reply-To: <1082759585.818002@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.c++:31451 comp.lang.ada:7453
 comp.lang.eiffel:739 comp.object:11104
Date: 2004-04-24T14:58:02-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> In Eiffel, Derived::Foo(Derived) overrides Base::Foo(Base).
> That means that if you have a Base object, and you call
> some_base_reference.Foo(some_other_base_reference), the call
> looks correct, but if some_base_reference is really a Derived
> and some_other_base_reference is not a Derived, you have an
> error.
Your first statement is incorrect. You can decide whether it's 
Derived::Foo (Derived) or Derived::Foo (Base). If you do implement the 
former, you will indeed get an error. If you implement the latter, no 
errors are generated.

Could you provide a scenario where you would need to have both the base 
and derived class existing in the program, and you would need to 
implement Derived::Foo (Derived) overriding Base::Foo (Base)?

> 
> It's a horrible misfeature, but its proponents cling to it
> tenaciously, and they have spent years trying to figure out
> workarounds so that the errors can be caught.

Those are some interesting allegations. Do you have any references which 
support your claims?