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: 103376,616d9205126cfe82,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Invocation of Shadowed Implementations in Ada 95
Date: 1996/09/04
Message-ID: <1996Sep4.163433.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178499786
x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org
x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN
x-trace: 841869295/9423
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I have read in "Object-Oriented Programming with Ada 9X",
Copyright 1993 by S. Barbey, M. Kempe, and A. Strohmeier
a description of "invocation of shadowed implementations".

>      procedure Display (M: Man) is
>        begin
>          Display (Human (M));  -- invocation of the shadowed implementation
>          Put (", male");
>          if Is_Bearded (M) then
>            Put (" is bearded");
>          end if;
>        end Display;

Is this really the way this is to be done ?

Although it is in the spirit of Ada syntax, it seems to me inferior
to the Macintosh Pascal approach of:

	inherited Display (M);

in that the Ada example requires revisiting many more procedures
if the type hierarchy is changed (unlikely for the particular
example given, but more likely in other situations).

Larry Kilgallen