Re: "use" clauses and Ada 95 OOP

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <31EF9D30.7A0@csehp3.mdc.com> "James A. Squire" <m193884@CSEHP3.MDC.COM> writes:

> Mitch Gart wrote:
>...
> > To me the C++/Java syntax
> >
> >     x.func
> >
> > seems clearer than the Ada syntax in this case because what is being
> > called is the function that is associated with X at runtime, rather than
> > the function that comes from a given package.
> 
> Indeed, that is a drawback that was mentioned in our group by someone
> who is familiar with C++.  I can't argue with it at all.

What do either of you mean by "the function that is associated with X
at runtime" here?  In the environment we are talking about here there
is no "_the_ func associated with X".  X contains a value which will
have a type indicator which will provide access to the proper jump
table entry.  Since the value of X can change (e.g., in C++ or Java up
level assignments) the func "associated" with X can change (and not
necessarily be the one defined in the class of which X was a declared
instance).  Seems pretty much like the exact same issue.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com