Re: tagged record child: override constructor?

["Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> There is no point in adopting what other languages did wrong.

Except that Ada isn't doing things any differently than the
other languages, it's just adopted a notation that makes it
confusing. Ada *does* allow redispatch, type tags *are* in
every tagged object, you *can* convert from the type to the
classwide type, tagged objects are *always* passed by
reference. But where C++ and Java will make dispatching
calls where those are indicated by the class specification,
Ada forces the programmer to request such calls in a strange
way at call sites, and since there's nothing syntactically
wrong with making a non-dispatching call, the programmer won't
notice the mistake if that request isn't made.

> As I said before, it is equivalent to dispatch that does not happen.

You may say it all you like, but my code clearly demonstrates
that dispatching *does* happen. B::B() calls A::g() and that
dispatches to B::f(). The A::g() that's called by B::B() is
exactly the same A::g() that's called from outside constructors.