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 Path: border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog4.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:39:47 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1239ezez4bgf7.e2ihtjo019ka.dlg@40tude.net> References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com> <8bhozh836pyt$.1qctlysud0s2q$.dlg@40tude.net> <1cdsyxjzsfgzm.1synpaujysv21$.dlg@40tude.net> <1aa804jg9qq4o$.wdiq33yo621l.dlg@40tude.net> <1w6eh0aiksmdh$.1h16p7y0b8c6h.dlg@40tude.net> <17twpp4p8u7o$.1idvzaaio4f3t$.dlg@40tude.net> <16388p09ph28u$.1mglp0rm7pli9$.dlg@40tude.net> <9cm2e094hvj7.sj0t2sh2komn.dlg@40tude.net> <1wchtiw4r35px.1pwedxqesqlr4.dlg@40tude.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: G+aXx1XI67D34t54ibhUPQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Original-Bytes: 2868 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185781 Date: 2014-04-17T09:39:47+02:00 List-Id: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:53:05 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message > news:1wchtiw4r35px.1pwedxqesqlr4.dlg@40tude.net... > ... >>> The reason here is that maintainers need to be free to ADD new >>> operations/entities without changing the behavior of any pre-existing >>> client (which necessarily does not use those new operations/entities). >> >> Again, no difference between SD and MD. If you add a new primitive >> operation (not override an existing one), there cannot be any effect on >> the clients because they did not use the operation. > > But that's not now and never has been true. Why? Because the new operation > can have the same name as some existing operation, and the entire point of > this discussion is that preference rules in overloading resolution have > potentially bad effects in such cases. No, it can have the same name only if the signature is different. That would be overloading, thus whatever rules of preference for MD are, they would not apply. If you want to say that overloading is a can of worms. Yes it is. But that has nothing to do with MD vs. SD and ambiguity resolution there. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de