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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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 Received: by 10.204.141.4 with SMTP id k4mr841943bku.6.1335453582062; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Path: h15ni168171bkw.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X? Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <3324774.1793.1335453581565.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncc41> References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5> <9af5eaaa-1c48-4455-a8e8-39dd9ee8092d@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1335453581 17867 127.0.0.1 (26 Apr 2012 15:19:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:19:41 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-04-26T08:19:41-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:52:52 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57)" wrote in message=20 > news:op.wdcj0snyule2fv@douda-yannick... > ... > >> If method resolution clause exists: > >> > >> type T is new I1 and I2; > >> overriding(I1.X) procedure X1 (Obj : T); > >> overriding(I2.X) procedure X2 (Obj : T); > > > >The above may still present issues with overloading. Imagine X exist wit= h=20 > >multiple signatures, for both I1 and I2: as your proposal does not refer= =20 > >the precise signature, this would still be ambiguous. >=20 > Right; simple names are never enough. You always need the full profile, e= lse=20 > you still have holes. Those holes were bad enough for pragmas that we dum= ped=20 > the entire mess and invented aspect specifications for Ada 2012. >=20 > We actually considered something like this for Ada 2005, but decided it j= ust=20 > goes too far. In part, that's because having such a problem suggests bad= =20 > design somewhere: it should never be the case that you have two routines= =20 > with the same name and profile that have different meanings. I'm not sure that's an indicator of bad design, in this case. It seems qui= te plausible that the interface types, I1 and I2, were designed by people w= ho had nothing to do with each other, working on totally different open-sou= rce projects; and it happened that they came up with the same name and prof= ile for one of their methods. You probably can't attribute that to bad des= ign. Now someone else wants to make use of reusable open-source software a= nd they want to define a type that implements both the I1 and I2 interfaces= . I don't think it seems all that far-fetched. I'm only a little familiar= with other languages (such as D-Flat) that support interfaces, but from wh= at little I know, it does seem like a definite problem in those languages. -- Adam