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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,75a8a3664688f227
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-14 13:33:42 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news-hog.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Parameter Modes, In In Out and Out
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:17:23 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Message-ID: <93t50u$vpf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <93cagm$c1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93e4e6$ucg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93encq$brm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93f6ar$m44$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93flab$2mh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93fqau$6m2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93h9mo$bbm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93il87$iqo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93k6dv$qt6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93ko49$auq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93modu$36k$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93n2co$alq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93q39q$oq0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93q6cd$r3k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101131407170.18026-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <93scpf$ddc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101141234130.2654-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 14 21:17:23 2001 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x57.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4010
Date: 2001-01-14T21:17:23+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article
<Pine.BSF.4.21.0101141234130.2654-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
  Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> Sure, I hope it was clear that I "kind of" agree, since I
> included a  smiley and mentioned that I'm aware of the
> idioms. Clearly, MD is  "cleaner" at some level but that
> argument could be used for including every feature in a
> language.

Yes indeed, that was clear, and I entirely agree with
everything you say here.
>
> I'm still wondering if anyone (Dmitry?) can come up with some
> good  (natural, commonly occurring, etc.) examples which use
> triple or  n-tuple dispatch where n > 2. All of the examples
> I've run into so far are double-dispatch.

Right, indeed examples would be interesting. I have been trying
to provoke Dmitry to come up with examples, but so far without
success :-)

> Well, surely you read the note about the ESA project which
> eschewed  Ada in favor of C++ on account of the inability to
> do Java style  MI of interface in Ada? That may not count as
> customer demand, but  it is an interesting data point
> nonetheless.

Well it certainly does not count as customer demand :-) As far
as I know the ESA did not even investigate the possibility of
whether this feature could be added to Ada (if they consider
Java as potentially usable, then obviously language standards
are not a consideration :-)

But more to the point, when you here someone say

I am choosing language X instead of Ada because Ada does not
have Y.

Then it does not mean that if Ada *did* have Y, they would
have chosen Ada.

I agree it is worth pursuing, but if the ESA is saying that
the only way they can make their birds fly is to use Java
style MI, then that's not very convincing!


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/