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: fac41,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,953e1a6689d791f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Eiffel and Java + Ada dispatching Date: 1996/11/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 194434571 sender: news@syd.csa.com.au x-nntp-posting-host: dev11 references: organization: CSC Australia, Sydney reply-to: donh@syd.csa.com.au newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: :Don Harrison says : :"Disagree. Overloading *is* syntactic sugar because it merely allows reuse :of an identifier without any semantic difference (to using a different one). :The reason Ada does not need checks on use of polymorphism is that :it is avariant (no variance) compared with Eiffel which is covariant." : :... In particular, overloading plays quite :an important role with respect to generic instantiation, and is much :more than syntactic sugar in Ada. You appear to be referring to RM 12.3(14) under Generic Instantiation, Static Semantics which says "The interpretation of each construct within a generic declaration or body is determined using the overloading rules ...". Maybe I don't understand what this means but it's not clear how this is any different from other uses of overloading (in which there is no semantic difference from using unique procedure names). If you can provide an example showing there is such a difference, I'll believe you. Don. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison donh@syd.csa.com.au