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,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c424d8135e68278
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-20 06:17:50 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada2005
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:17:48 GMT
Message-ID: <3c21f040.107722343@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
References: <9v4jsj$bd1$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <9v7f26$qn2$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <3C1754BA.C4560423@informatik.uni-jena.de> <Q_MR7.13041$7y.146471@rwcrnsc54>
 <3c1868b2.1587625@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <uvgf5rb15.fsf@telus.net>
 <ZT4U7.8830$Ah.485000@rwcrnsc52>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1008857869 18101770 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18144
Date: 2001-12-20T14:17:48+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:20:41 GMT, "Mark Lundquist"
<no.spam@getalife.com> wrote:

>
>"Ray Blaak" <blaak@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:uvgf5rb15.fsf@telus.net...
>> dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) writes:
>> > However, what people criticizing Ada usualy want, is just a syntax
>> > sugar, which would allow to refer methods using postfix form if there
>> > is only one dispatching [or class-wide] argument and it is the first
>> > one.
>>
>> Like me.
>>
>> > I think in a future revision there could be some variant of rename
>> > statement which would allow to do this and also the opposite thing
>> > [for "methods" of protected objects and tasks which are always called
>> > using the postfix form]. For instance:
>> >
>> > type Ellipse is tagged ...
>> > procedure Draw (Figure : Ellipse, Where : Point);
>> > entry Ellipse.Draw (Where : Point) renames Draw;
>>
>> Why not make it automatic? The extra declaration is tedious and requires
>extra
>> maintenance.
>>
>> Given:
>>
>>   e : Ellipse;
>>
>> then have
>>
>>   e.Draw(p)
>>
>> be valid iff Draw exists with an Ellipse as its first parameter.
>>
>> Then it is truly just an alternate syntax to be used if desired, and not
>used
>> if not.
>>
>
>Doesn't it make a mishmash of the name resolution rules?  Consider
>
>        type Note is private;
>
>        function Pitch (Subject : Note) return Note_Properties.Pitch;
>        function Length (Subject : Note) return Note_Properties.Length;
>
>    private
>
>        type Note is record
>            Pitch : Note_Properties.Pitch;
>            Length : Note_Properties.Lenght;
>        end record;
>
>In the body of the package, how do you resolve the name "X.Pitch" for an X
>of type Note?

We already have this case with protected types:

protected type X is
    function Y return Integer;
private
    Y : Integer;  -- Illegal!
end X;

Thus the compiler should complain about:

Pitch : Note_Properties.Pitch;

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov