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: 103376,8c424d8135e68278
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-19 10:20:42 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Mark Lundquist" <no.spam@getalife.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <9v4jsj$bd1$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <9v7f26$qn2$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <3C1754BA.C4560423@informatik.uni-jena.de> <Q_MR7.13041$7y.146471@rwcrnsc54>
 <3c1868b2.1587625@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <uvgf5rb15.fsf@telus.net>
Subject: Re: Ada2005
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <ZT4U7.8830$Ah.485000@rwcrnsc52>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:20:41 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.212
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: rwcrnsc52 1008786041 204.127.202.212 (Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:20:41 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:20:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18105
Date: 2001-12-19T18:20:41+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Ray Blaak" <blaak@telus.net> wrote in message
news:uvgf5rb15.fsf@telus.net...
> dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) writes:
> > However, what people criticizing Ada usualy want, is just a syntax
> > sugar, which would allow to refer methods using postfix form if there
> > is only one dispatching [or class-wide] argument and it is the first
> > one.
>
> Like me.
>
> > I think in a future revision there could be some variant of rename
> > statement which would allow to do this and also the opposite thing
> > [for "methods" of protected objects and tasks which are always called
> > using the postfix form]. For instance:
> >
> > type Ellipse is tagged ...
> > procedure Draw (Figure : Ellipse, Where : Point);
> > entry Ellipse.Draw (Where : Point) renames Draw;
>
> Why not make it automatic? The extra declaration is tedious and requires
extra
> maintenance.
>
> Given:
>
>   e : Ellipse;
>
> then have
>
>   e.Draw(p)
>
> be valid iff Draw exists with an Ellipse as its first parameter.
>
> Then it is truly just an alternate syntax to be used if desired, and not
used
> if not.
>

Doesn't it make a mishmash of the name resolution rules?  Consider

        type Note is private;

        function Pitch (Subject : Note) return Note_Properties.Pitch;
        function Length (Subject : Note) return Note_Properties.Length;

    private

        type Note is record
            Pitch : Note_Properties.Pitch;
            Length : Note_Properties.Lenght;
        end record;

In the body of the package, how do you resolve the name "X.Pitch" for an X
of type Note?