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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d1df6bc3799debed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Subject: Re: Syntax for tagged record types and class types
Date: 1997/05/30
Message-ID: <338EC3D1.315554E6@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 244986818
References: <mheaney-ya023680002105972330150001@news.ni.net>
 <EAuGEM.1Lp.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Tucker Taft wrote:
> Prefix notation, by which I mean <object>.<operation>, is reserved in
> Ada 95 for calls on "synchronizing" operations.  The prefix object
> is the one controlling the synchronization.  Hence, prefix notation is
> used for task entry calls, and protected operation calls only.

... and record components, and package components. I don't think that this
convention helps us very much, because the language does not follow it in a
consistent manner. For instance, when I see the expression

   Object.Nb_Items

I don't know (without context) if it is a call to a protected function or the
value of a record component.

So I don't think that reserving the <object>.<operation> notation to
synchronizing operations is really useful.