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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,5af5c381381ac5a7 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada requires too much typing! Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 06:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <457b9c75-1c94-4137-a823-2db342cb26d1@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> References: <03f84a0a-e070-43a9-9b68-920345f64f94@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <1c704c1e-1b2e-427f-ae0e-3b2a0f976c7c@y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> <14cxhfhcbdmaa$.gp6rbqu5865h.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.138.182.236 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1276091660 30830 127.0.0.1 (9 Jun 2010 13:54:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.138.182.236; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3,gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12494 Date: 2010-06-09T06:54:18-07:00 List-Id: On 9 Cze, 11:24, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: > > By "polymorphism" I meant the parametrisation based on dynamic > > dispatch, > > This is a specific form of polymorphism. Yes, of course, there is also overloading as so-called "ad-hoc polymorphism", etc. I'm perfectly convinced that *everybody* understood what I meant in this particular context, especially when the context itself contained many references to virtual functions and object-orientation. What is the purpose of your argument, then? Are we having a dispute just for the sake of having it? > > also known as object-orientation. > > There are different opinions on whether OO is limited to dynamic > polymorphism. In which case we will never finish debating. > > Note, for example, that containers in C++ have no common base class/ > > interface. In Ada this is similar. > > There is a common base, which is just not explicit. And you just forgot to explain what it is. Could you please elaborate on this? What is the common base class/interface for C++ or Ada containers? How can I use it? -- Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com YAMI4 - Messaging Solution for Distributed Systems http://www.inspirel.com/yami4