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-Thread: 103376,104df2b9b7a2f689,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!81.92.173.228.MISMATCH!news1.tnib.de!feed.news.tnib.de!news.tnib.de!news.belwue.de!LF.net!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Interfaces
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:27:48 +0200
Message-ID: <8764xj9wzf.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: albireo.enyo.de 1116246471 1285 212.9.189.177 (16 May 2005 12:27:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: 
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0HWS0IdM/QyVEGIvr2qvYBy5MvU=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11038
Date: 2005-05-16T14:27:48+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Suppose there are two interface types, J1 and J2, and the following
dispatching subprogramms:

  procedure Foo (Obj : J1);
  procedure Foo (Obj : J2;

T implements both J1 and J2, and provides a body for

  procedure Foo (Obj : T);

As far as I understand the Ada 200x spec, this subprogram declaration
overrides both versions of Foo, such that

  Foo ((J1 (T_Obj));
  Foo ((J2 (T_Obj));

invoke the same subprogram.  Is this correct?

I don't think this is a desirable approach because it makes interfaces
a strictly non-modular concept, and might force library designers to
add unique prefixes to interface subprogram names.