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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Invoking parental methods (was: Java vs Ada 95)
Date: 1996/11/05
Message-ID: <1996Nov5.112527.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 194652147
x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org
references: <E0ED6w.24D.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <E0EIM2.A3p.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN
x-trace: 847211132/20863
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <E0EIM2.A3p.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) writes:

> The call which avoids the accessibility check, and accomplishes the
> statically bound call on the parent's operation, is:
> 
>     p_first(parent(param.all)'access);

So what is the recommended method of expressing that in such a fashion
as to have a single instance of the name "parent" in a package body
supporting multiple calls of the type under discussion?

My problem, again, is maintainability in the face of genealogy shifts.
Since Ada 95 does not have a mechanism to do it with zero changes
to the body in the fashion of Macintosh Object Pascal, I am hoping
for 1.

Larry Kilgallen