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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.211.136 with SMTP id nc8mr5413297pbc.6.1335511421239; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Path: r9ni103556pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X? Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:23:13 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <11hojzrgyl24o$.1rbxahkuoy4ab$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5> <4f97bf40$0$6559$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-04-27T09:23:13+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:58:06 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message > news:lh3gjjdhbg01.k1bt0u2astpl$.dlg@40tude.net... >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:23:37 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > ... >>> (2) Generic in-out object parameters (almost never used, hard to >>> implement, >>> probably buggy because of the first two); >> >> What about passing a storage pool to a generic? > > One of the reasons I didn't propose getting rid of anonymous access is that > they're really handy for solving the occasional oddity > object that is an anonynous access to Root_Storage_Pool'Class handles this > need nicely, But you won't say that a C-fan arguing that there is no need in-out parameters because int* does the job? (:-)) >>> (3) Interfaces (buys almost nothing over abstract types, except a huge >>> amount of complication in definition and implementation); >> >> Hold on, should it mean that you are for true MI? I cannot believe it! >> (:-)) > > I've concluded that I'm pretty much against all forms of MI. Do not both Integer and Float implement "is private", T'Image, X'Size? MI is all around you without any tagged types, you cannot get rid of it. You sweep it under the carpet and pretend it does not exist. > Which I realize > is probably too strong, but surely Interfaces isn't it. I'm definitely > against any mechanism that you can only use once, which is the way a > particular interface works. That leads to silliness like the "no hidden > interfaces" rule (because otherwise you could destroy privacy by adding the > "right" interface; alternatively, you could destroy everyone's sanity by > determining what routine to dispatch to by what visibility you have). That is because the broken Java model was deployed. Look you cannot make a type non-limited by adding "private" (=copyiable) interfaces. There is no problem, except for fighting shadows. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de