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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,54889de51045a215
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-20 20:38:34 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031008 Thunderbird/0.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: += in ada
References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru>
 <17cd177c.0310010606.52da88f3@posting.google.com> <3F8BC74F.2CFBFF37@0.0>
 <bebbba07.0310160049.3ede5878@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbot4oc.nr.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <1066312000.671303@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <w%yjb.783830$YN5.775353@sccrnsc01>
 <1066322883.139702@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F8F372D.9040801@comcast.net>
 <3F8F4559.50306@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0310181737.5e370815@posting.google.com>
 <3F929FC8.9070901@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0310191847.2d254e86@posting.google.com>
 <bn12if$sek$1@titan.btinternet.com> <e4WdneVLhtPUGQmiU-KYgw@gbronline.com>
In-Reply-To: <e4WdneVLhtPUGQmiU-KYgw@gbronline.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <VS1lb.8202$Fc5.297@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:38:29 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.228.90
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1066707509 162.84.228.90 (Mon,
 20 Oct 2003 23:38:29 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:38:29 EDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1247
Date: 2003-10-21T03:38:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Wes Groleau wrote:
> The same applies to Method(Object) vs. Object.Method
> Please explain to me WHY someone thinks this is a
> "serious improvement" ?

I don't actually know if this applies to the proposed
implementation in Ada, but I would imagine that the
Object.Method syntax uses only the Object as the thing
upon which to dispatch. I believe as things stand now
in Ada, if you write a method which you would like to
be dispatching, and it takes more than one parameter of
the object type, then all the arguments must be of the
same dynamic type.