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 10.68.125.233 with SMTP id mt9mr10507886pbb.5.1335570127611;
        Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni106127pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: sbelmont700@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <25142265.182.1335570050700.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbez18>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <13849842.838.1335485882969.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai3>
 <134641.307.1335542673651.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbrx5>
 <2867357.127.1335561067669.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynee1>
 <jnf9gh$et5$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.53.78.59
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1335570127 16410 127.0.0.1 (27 Apr 2012 23:42:07
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:42:07 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <jnf9gh$et5$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.53.78.59;
 posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-04-27T16:40:50-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, April 27, 2012 7:18:34 PM UTC-4, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> Note that Ada 95 did that (implicitly) for the Initialize/Adjust/Finalize=
=20
> routines of type Controlled. We made that more explicit in Ada 2005, but=
=20
> that did not reflect any language change. This is another example of a=20
> "hook".

But this, along with the other hooks, seems like a relic of a single-inheri=
tance version of Ada.  A much (well, perhaps just slightly) better version =
would be to split things up into multiple interfaces.  For instance, instea=
d of just extending Ada.Finalization and getting all three hooks regardless=
, you split the three routines into three different one-subprogram interfac=
es.  Types extend exactly which ones they want, and not the ones they don't=
.  If you don't want Finalization or Initialization, then you only extend t=
he Ada.Finalization.Adjustable (e.g.), and you no longer have usless subpro=
grams being called to perform usless actions, and any mistakes (forgetting =
to implement one, trying to implement another, etc) are caught at compile t=
ime.  Types get exactly what they ask for, and nothing they don't.  Why lea=
ve to a human what can be done by the compiler?

-sb