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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: wheeler@aphrodite (David Wheeler)
Subject: Re: Invoking parental methods (was: Java vs Ada 95)
Date: 1996/11/07
Message-ID: <55tm4r$8al@news.ida.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 195181699
references: <E0ED6w.24D.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <E0EIM2.A3p.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <EACHUS.96Nov6175318@spectre.mitre.org>
organization: IDA, Alexandria, Virginia
reply-to: dwheeler@ida.org
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) wrote:
: In article <1996Nov5.112527.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

:   > My problem, again, is maintainability in the face of genealogy shifts.
:   > Since Ada 95 does not have a mechanism to do it with zero changes
:   > to the body in the fashion of Macintosh Object Pascal, I am hoping
:   > for 1.

:    I really feel that a 'SUPER attribute would make the language more
: useable, and maybe implementors will start providing it.

I actually recommended such an attribute (I named it 'Parent) as part of
the Ada95 revision. My suggestion was struck down for the reason you see here
(you can emulate it with "subtype").  I still think it's a good idea,
even though there's a simple workaround, because it simplifies maintenance
and reduces possible errors (e.g. forgetting to redefine subtype Parent when
the hieararchy changes).


--- David A. Wheeler
    dwheeler@ida.org