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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,75a8a3664688f227 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-14 12:44:07 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!mtu.ru!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sjc-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Parameter Modes, In In Out and Out In-Reply-To: <93scpf$ddc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Message-ID: References: <93cagm$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$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93scpf$ddc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:42:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.184.139.136 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: sjc-read.news.verio.net 979504957 206.184.139.136 (Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:42:37 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:42:37 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4006 Date: 2001-01-14T20:42:37+00:00 List-Id: On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote: > In article > , > Brian Rogoff wrote: > > How is the example of object IO above? I think you can > > generalize that to lots of similar cases. > > But this example is easily written using the current idioms, > the issue being one of ease of inheritance, but it is not > clear that this is a compelling argument. 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. 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. > > And I guess it goes without saying that I hope GNAT is quick > > to implement some of these ideas... > > Currently we don't see any demand for doing anything in this > area, so there are no plans. It's a lot of work, and it is not > something that will get done without a very clear demand. I > certainly agree it would be nice to use GNAT as an experimental > vehicle for looking at some of these issues. 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. -- Brian