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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5f0f4bfb0467bb19
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.27.230 with SMTP id w6mr18346947pbg.3.1317410076445;
        Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 lh7ni8490pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Rego, P." <pvrego@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Constructors with multiple inheritance
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <2179298.1737.1317410075987.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgn17>
References: 
 <11513972.2788.1317325228383.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqnv12>
 <1rj1mmkvwud1d.dzqoy4jhdfca$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4976045.4489.1317352313370.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqjw35>
 <2pu3h5hqltxi$.ze4yrf1f2y8z.dlg@40tude.net>
 <23774546.1654.1317391464047.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqnk41>
 <wccoby2uh6w.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@googlegroups.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 200.148.121.121
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1317410076 23222 127.0.0.1 (30 Sep 2011 19:14:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:14:36 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <wccoby2uh6w.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=200.148.121.121;
 posting-account=TRgI1QoAAABSsYi-ox3Pi6N-JEKKU0cu
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18244
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2011-09-30T12:14:35-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> It's fine to use the prefix notation if you think it's more readable,
> but you shouldn't attach any semantic significance to it -- it really is
> just syntactic sugar.
Ok. I will not (attach extra significance).
 
> You can't use an operation of an object to create that same object,
> because it doesn't exist yet.
I agree, with this declaration. But maybe Dmitry has given me a good idea if I declare the method for an access parameter (so the null problem would not exist anymore, right?).