Re: The old "Object.Method" syntax debate

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

What I find interesting about this, was the reference
in C++ circles to allow the "Ada way" of reference, to
work around the limitations that object.method() has.

We seem to have two groups digging tunnels
underground to meet in the middle?

Probably a google of this news group could find the
pointer that posted here a few months ago.

Warren.

David C. Hoos wrote:
> This was brought up in a forum regarding enhancements for Ada0X,
> at the SIG-Ada meeting last December, and the consensus was it
> should be done, so it probably will.
> 
> In defense of the charge that the objection is "vacuous," I would point
> out that that notation prevents the need to fully qualify the subprogram
> name (in the absence of use clauses) when invoking the subprogram
> for an object which is in scope.
> 
> Having worked in the .NET environment for quite a while, it's really
> nice to be able to type an object name, then the dot, and immediately
> see a little pop-up-window showing all of the available operations,
> and being able to select from the list instead of typing the full
> subprogram name.
> 
> My current work is C#, and I haven't yet had the time to try A#, but
> I hope to get around to it, soon.
> 
> 
> "Marc A. Criley" <mcq95@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:254c16a.0305210726.485125de@posting.google.com...
> 
>>Yeah, I'm bringing this up.  Kill the thread if your eyes just rolled
>>up into your head %-)
>>
>>The reason I'm mentioning this is because of something I just read in
>>Martin Carlisle, Sward, and Humphries' paper "Weaving Ada 95 into the
>>.Net Environment" (http://www.adapower.net/a_sharp/asharp.pdf).
>>
>>While this has been available online for awhile I only now read it in
>>my recent issue of Ada Letters.
>>
>>What caught my attention was an almost peripheral mention of modifying
>>GNAT to recognize the Object.Method syntax: "Ada 95 has often been
>>criticized for making the syntax of dispatching method calls the same
>>as the imperative procedure calls. [...]  We have modified the
>>compiler to allow the same object.method syntax [...]  We have also
>>performed this modification to the Windows 3.15 version of GNAT. It
>>required only 127 non-blank, non-comment lines of Ada code. We expect
>>this syntax will make it easier for students to understand
>>object-oriented programming. Since we also support the standard Ada 95
>>syntax, we still have the nicer Ada syntax for operators (x+y instead
>>of x."+"(y))."
...
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg