From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 19 Aug 93 10:36:19 GMT
From: pipex!uknet!festival!dcs.ed.ac.uk!gym@uunet.uu.net  (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: OO Preprocessor for Ada
Message-ID: <CC05GJ.CEx@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

<15JUL199315464091@cl2.cl.uh.edu> RILEY@cl.uh.edu writes:
> >>However, this breaks down for binary operators.  One nice
> >>feature of CLOS and Ada 9X, is that binary operators are handled
> >>symmetrically, without any need for non-inheritable "friends."
cernosek@source.asset.com (Gary J. Cernosek) writes:
> This is indeed the benefit of having the "target object" for 
> an operation be passed as an explicit parameter to an 
> operation.  But in the cases where an operation is performed on 
> a single object (i.e., unary operations), some may feel the 
> syntax that John Riley is searching for would make Ada "more 
> object-oriented" (i.e., where the target object is _implicitly_ 
> passed by the object prefix notation).  So...

I don't mean to sound too wildly incredulous, but surely people don't 
really believe that people think "X is more OO because of some
syntax that passes the target object implicitly"?!?!?! Or am I
over-estimating people's common sense?

graham

-- 
You can tell how far we have to go when FORTRAN is the language of
supercomputers.
	-- Steven Feiner