From: jamess1889@aol.com (JamesS1889)
Subject: Re: "use" clauses and Ada 95 OOP
Date: 1996/07/25
Date: 1996-07-25T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4t7vev$ot9@newsbf02.news.aol.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: EACHUS.96Jul23175154@spectre.mitre.org
In article <JSA.96Jul23220309@alexandria>, jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
writes:
>Well, this still does not answer my question, but maybe it does not
>matter. I think I now see that the issue is that in Ada, dispatching
>is a local issue and does _not_ occur by default - rather it occurs
>for primitive ops of tagged tyes iff you pass in a "class-wide" actual
>to a controlling formal parameter. To not dispatch you simply use an
>actual of a specific type and then the operation will be statically
>bound. So, dispatching or not has nothing to do with qualified names.
And I actually don't know as much as I should about dispatching in C++.
You're right, it probably doesn't matter. I was actually talking about
syntactic analogy. Semantically, you are right.
>In Java and C++ (with"virtual"...) dispatching is a global issue and
>the default is to dispatch, and to not dispatch you have to explicitly
>request non-dispatching with a qualified name. So, you appear to have
>linked up qualified name notation with explicit calls to the function
>so qualified. OK, yes, this is different than the situation in Ada
>and notice that the use of "use" does not change the semantics of this
>only the visual appearance.
Agreed.
>I suppose the route that you would be more comfortable with then is the
>one that I mentioned in a previous post, viz., the use of abstract base
>types for any extension that provides _new_ primitive operations. You
>then use dispatching invocations only on the abstract operation. You
>would then typically (well I suppose) use qualified naming but since
>the operation is abstract it would not seem "funny" that it dispatched
>to wherever (based on the type indicator):
Maybe so. It's under consideration ;-)
James Squire
mailto:ja_squire@csehp3.mdc.com
MDA Avionics Tools & Processes
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace http://www.mdc.com
Opinions expressed here are my own and NOT my company's
"Only one Earth Captain has ever survived battle with a Minbari fleet. He
is behind me.
You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else!"
-- Delenn, "Severed Dreams"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-07-25 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-07-17 0:00 "use" clauses and Ada 95 OOP Mitch Gart
1996-07-19 0:00 ` James A. Squire
1996-07-22 0:00 ` Stephen Schmid
1996-07-23 0:00 ` JamesS1889
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Mitch Gart
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Kevin J. Weise
1996-07-23 0:00 ` JamesS1889
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Kevin J. Weise
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-07-25 0:00 ` JamesS1889
1996-07-26 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Laurent Guerby
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-07-23 0:00 ` JamesS1889
1996-07-24 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-07-24 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-07-19 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-07-19 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1996-07-23 0:00 ` JamesS1889
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-07-24 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1996-07-25 0:00 ` JamesS1889 [this message]
1996-07-24 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-07-20 0:00 ` James A. Squire
1996-07-21 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-07-22 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-07-23 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox