Re: Something like "->" in Ada?

[Mike Young <mikey@mcs.com>]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Mike said
> 
> "But, as you say, it's probably a matter of acclimation."
> 
> Probably. One thing you can say is that the Ada approach is more general.
> FOr instance if you declare an operation "+" in an abstract algebra, and
> then you derive a particular concrete algebra with a specific concrete
> "+" operator, this fits into the Ada scheme cleanly and easily, but in
> a "send mssage to this object" paradigm, it is awkward and forced, if
> cleanly possible at all.

===========
It seems the mention of "sending messages" sidetracked this to something 
like Smalltalk (?). This was not the intention. In either case, I miss 
your point.

It's not possible in C++ to override an infix operator (that is, they 
cannot be virtual... ummm, polymorphic). The "work-around" is to define 
a concrete infix operator in terms of a polymorphic private method:


class B {
public:
  B operator+(const B& b) const
  { return Add(b); }

private:
  virtual B Add(const B& b) const = 0; // pure virtual
};

Public concrete children of B will now dispatch to their own (or 
inherited) Add, unless some intervening class in the inheritance chain 
also hides (can't override) "+".

I don't recall how talk of overriding infix operators fits in context 
with the original discussion regarding x.f() versus f(x). Also, as yet, 
nobody addressed the disparity between attributes and sub-programs in 
context of cascading (C++, Java) vs explicitly passing "this" to 
sub-programs (Ada). The following are (I hope) equivalent:

Java-ish:
  d = x.a().b().c;    // where c is an attribute of return from b().
  e = x.a().b().c();  // where c is a method of return from b().
  f = x.a().b.c();    // where b is an attribute of return from x.a()

Ada-ish:
  D := B(A(X)).C;
  E := C(B(A(X)));
  F := C(A(X).B);

In all Java-ish examples, the path from x to a to b to c is clear. I 
apparently have a great deal of re-acclimating to do before intuitively 
grasping the same in Ada-ish. I understand the algorithm: start from 
deepest paren level, look left, look right, repeat until we run outa 
parens. This feels very much like the much despised 
C-pointer-to-function "parsing" algorithm.

(I'm not nit-picking the languages to death. This follows-up on the 
original poster's question regarding preference for Perl's "->" notation 
versus Ada's function call notation.)

Mike.