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-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252 X-Google-Thread: 103376,fba93c19bb4e7dbd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-20 05:36:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F1A8CAB.2050400@attbi.com> From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Q: Endless loop by dispatching References: <3F0ED2C8.6080409@snafu.de> <3F1857E4.60702@attbi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.31.71.243 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1058704571 66.31.71.243 (Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:36:11 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:36:11 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 12:36:11 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40522 Date: 2003-07-20T12:36:11+00:00 List-Id: Chad R. Meiners wrote: > Well one problem is that some people (as in me) think that Tucker's behavior > is common sense. Although either way, it is best to have the compilers agree > ;) On most every issue debated in the ARG, the actual decision made is almost a detail. The important parts are to make sure that everyone understands the issue, that we don't create new issues when fixing a current one, and to cover all cases. I personally think that the effort needed to allow support two dispatching operations of the same name, and which one gets called depends on the place in the text of the call is unnecessary overhead. (Note that having several dispatching operations with the same name, and determining which is called by a view conversion is clearly necessary. The surprise in this case is that there is no view conversion needed.) But again, any case where this comes up is expected to be one where the user is unintentionally shooting himself in the foot. The intent of adding pragma Overriding or the overriding keyword is to allow the user to detect such cases at compile time. THAT is the important part of the AI. This particular example arose when I was demonstrating that there are cases of overriding where there would be no reasonable place to put the pragma or keyword. It turned out that in this particular case, I was right to be wrong. I understood the rules the way GNAT implements them, while others compilers do it differently. I think that the final resolution will be to read things the way Tuck was arguing, with possibly a few "extra" words to insure that the only cases where the dual meanings arise are in package specs. I don't think we want a Beaujolais-like effect, where adding a with clause can change which version gets called. -- Robert I. Eachus �In an ally, considerations of house, clan, planet, race are insignificant beside two prime questions, which are: 1. Can he shoot? 2. Will he aim at your enemy?� -- from the Laiden novels by Sharon Lee and Steve Miller.