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 10.68.227.230 with SMTP id sd6mr3571792pbc.8.1335382063947; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Path: r9ni97926pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.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: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:27:35 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1wt0264fhtmi2$.127b1ocjesm8a$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: Gbl624r6iuNIccy3ASy5ag.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: 2012-04-25T21:27:35+02:00 List-Id: On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:02:57 +0200, Oliver Kleinke wrote: > Greetings, > >> 3) Multiple dispatch >> >> -- Martin > > That will overcomplicate things. Nope, it will simplify things, e.g. user-defined assignments, multi-methods, stream attributes, pool-specific access operations, which are naturally multiple dispatching. Note that Ada already has MD for multi-methods in a crippled form, because you can declare a primitive operation with many dispatching arguments of same type. > You'd end up with a truck load of implementations. So? This is what MD is meant to be: to organize and *statically* verify the mess of multiple implementations. >> 4) Full multiple inheritance. > > Same mess as in C++? Nope. A properly designed MI. Ada was capable to sort out the OO mess for single inheritance, there is no reason why it cannot continue with MI. Ada 2005 interfaces was a Java-mess. We should do MI in Ada way, clean and consistent. >> 5) Proper constructors and destructors (for all types), enforced, >> exception-safe with roll-back. > > Roll-back what? Side-effects? Destroying constructed component and parent objects. >> 11) Package interfaces, transitive "use." I.e. an ability to make things >> visible in some package visible in another without repeating all its with >> and use clauses. And, of course, "use" should imply "with" where >> applicable. > > This is a bad, bad, bad idea. Would totally clutter everything and make > everything unreadable. I think the current system is already liberal > enough, and I like to restrict myself to localized 'use' clauses - if > any! - for the sake of readability. I am not sure what you mean. Presently large projects using generics become unmaintainable even with a massive support of the IDE like GPS and prefix notation. Package interfaces should mow the jungle of packages, child packages, nested packages and their instances to lawn. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de