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-Thread: 103376,61e9062c1f23b9d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reconsidering assignment
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <1v0wjynus2uj6$.b4qm8649j38o$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <1181165630.012508.55290@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	 <19fxsxv1god43$.1pqq8vgfu2itn$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <1181428673.148991.76570@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
	 <f4k5s1$9rr$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
	 <1181596329.198235.320830@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
	 <1v0wjynus2uj6$.b4qm8649j38o$.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1181640696.5705.3.camel@kartoffel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:31:37 +0200
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jun 2007 11:31:35 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 822ecaf7.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=KDcKU7c[cdam7>ihJR;B_cMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRaFl8W>\BH3YbG]f>Z2[06EhN[W<lHX`=Bd\6BhD5G6\il[a4dR_X^>oo
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16168
Date: 2007-06-12T11:31:35+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 10:31 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:12:09 -0700, Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> > procedure P(X, Y : Real) with X*X + Y*Y <= 1;
> > procedure P(X, Y : Real);
> >
> > The idea was to have some assistance from the language for the proper
> > selection of overloaded P (one is for arguments that fall withing the
> > unit circle, and the other is for the rest).
> 
> This cannot work because overloading resolution happens at compile-time,
> while the conditions of matching, in your case are general run-time
> expressions.

As you explain further below, this is about template choice
computation by the compiler, I think.

> Yet another point: P is a polymorphic subprogram. Various overloading are
> implementations of. The condition clause controls the choice. Does not it
> remind you anything? Make Real a class!

Close to this is the Eiffel principle of using one name one and only
name for one entity, no overloading at all; if polymorphism is needed,
use overriding.

What about argument pattern matching?