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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a52c822fc0dbb23 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Anh Vo Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Rational for not making cursor tagged in Containers Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:18:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1177031884.096796.106370@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> References: <1176998738.656903.141250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1177010938.200523.325290@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1a8y2vakorfhx.225uqh4hifpd$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.225.225.142 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1177031884 32030 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2007 01:18:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:18:04 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1a8y2vakorfhx.225uqh4hifpd$.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.225.225.142; posting-account=JVr7Xg0AAAAI3MbuARxMmvWLmA7qdJMx Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15131 Date: 2007-04-19T18:18:04-07:00 List-Id: On Apr 19, 2:43 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:45:36 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote: > > > There is an advantage: If you have type P1.T1, with operation Mumble, > > and P2.T2 extends P1.T1, and X is of type T2, do I say "P1.Mumble(X, ...)", > > or "P2.Mumble(X, ...)"? It's confusing, because it depends whether Mumble > > is class-wide or dispatching, which is a conceptually minor > > distinction. And it's not unusual to change from dispatching > > to class-wide. The notation "X.Mumble(...)" avoids that confusion. > > (it replaces one confusion with several others) I do not understand what other confusions do you refer to. Other advantage of prefix notation is that I do not have to fully qualify nor apply use clause. > I think prefix notation is rubbish. There should be an abstract member > interface allowing users creation of whatever "members" they wished. So if > anybody liked prefix notation, he could say: Mumble implements ".Mumble." > Done. Why should the language do this by default? This is a separate issue. I am going with the current standard. One more thing, I usually heard the complain from the other side that Ada is too verbose (more typing). My reply is that now Ada is shorter the other language by two characters as shown below where X is the object and op is the operation. Ada Other OO language X.op; X.op(); AV