Re: The old "Object.Method" syntax debate

["Rodrigo Garcia" <rodrigo.garcia@epfl.ch>]

"David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote in message
news:vcprq15q8m344e@corp.supernews.com...
> I dod not mean to suggest that the availability of "IntelliSense"
justified
> the
> new syntax.  The new syntax would eliminate some code redundancy, as
> the AI points out.

I agree that is the point of the AI.

> > I am one of those who suspect that the new syntax would add more
confusion
> > than advantages to the language.
> As I pointed out in an earlier post, this syntax exists in Ada already for
> protected types.  See, for example line 54 of phil.adb of the dining
> philosophers
> demonstration program that comes with GNAT:
>
>       Room.Sticks (First_Grab).Pick_Up;
>
> Room.Sticks (First_Grab) is the object; Pick_Up is the operation.

Well, I heard that protected types syntax was also subject of strong
discussions and I can understand why. Nevertheless, protected types are
declared in a different way than tagged types. They already encapsulate
their subprograms and entries in their definition. Their syntax is more
similar to that used for declaring classes in mainstream OO languages so I
see natural to use the Object.Operation notation with protected types. Even
in your example you have the name of the package (Room), so they do not
"hide" the use clause.

However, primitive operation declarations of tagged types are encapsulated
in the package as with any other kind of type and the syntax is inherently
different. Why should we be able to use the new syntax only with tagged
types?

Hmm... Maybe it should be the other way round and keep the tagged type
syntax for protected types. I should propose "protected records" whose
primitive operations were run in mutual exclusion... what to do with entries
then?   :^)

Rodrigo