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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM 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 sd6mr7707336pbc.8.1335494281281;
        Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni102815pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: ytomino <aghia05@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <21303184.864.1335494280519.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbgg10>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <9af5eaaa-1c48-4455-a8e8-39dd9ee8092d@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
 <op.wdcj0snyule2fv@douda-yannick> <jnada9$1dv$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <3324774.1793.1335453581565.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncc41>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.6.224.39
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1335494281 17027 127.0.0.1 (27 Apr 2012 02:38:01
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 02:38:01 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: 
 <3324774.1793.1335453581565.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncc41>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.6.224.39;
 posting-account=Mi71UQoAAACnFhXo1NVxPlurinchtkIj
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-04-26T19:38:00-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, April 27, 2012 12:19:41 AM UTC+9, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>=20
> I'm not sure that's an indicator of bad design, in this case.  It seems q=
uite plausible that the interface types, I1 and I2, were designed by people=
 who had nothing to do with each other, working on totally different open-s=
ource projects; and it happened that they came up with the same name and pr=
ofile for one of their methods.  You probably can't attribute that to bad d=
esign.  Now someone else wants to make use of reusable open-source software=
 and they want to define a type that implements both the I1 and I2 interfac=
es.  I don't think it seems all that far-fetched.  I'm only a little famili=
ar with other languages (such as D-Flat) that support interfaces, but from =
what little I know, it does seem like a definite problem in those languages=
.

Great!=20
You said all things that I wanted to say.

And, some languages such as C# has tackled the problem that a base-class is=
 changed independently of derived-classes. Method resolution clause is one =
of these solutions.