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-Thread: 103376,999932ecc319322a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:20:54 -0600
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <1110212638.336123.298580@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <1gbk0qx2sgzpg$.sltzfssofla8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc64zw63j6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <3jok3ghqqls8$.1rrsonb8jsurt$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccsm30ttj5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <88zllqj1min5$.fqqxis9i327d$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcck6o7s4q4.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <18e9a92kz25wu$.8b965bel5vef$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccpsxy1i8l.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: advice on package design
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:23:15 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200
Message-ID: <ZeSdndSLdoRLjaffRVn-uw@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-51pQK9Fyud7Nvv7WMAe+tSlUG/kQI6UpDNyAZFFd/nOL57p1eqflG6+gyh+mJExUjTMA8ZyoDCTug0Z!QVE4ddBMvpcxUGg9s4Y4pVxH8+5qmjUjj/8MTh6Kbfdqddh61r6fZ1faCyhZQxhZ/A0h5a5/Db8q
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9569
Date: 2005-03-17T17:23:15-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:wccpsxy1i8l.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>
> > Presently it is not explicit. Syntactically overriding is
undistinguishable
> > from declaring a new operation. This is IMO bad. It should be sort of:
> >
> > procedure Override (X : Object) is ????;
> >    -- Overriding intended, fails if base types have no primitive
Override
> > procedure Override (X : Object);
> >    -- Overloading intended, fails if it hides any other Override
>
> I think Ada 2005 has something like that.

Yes.

overriding
procedure Override (X : Object);
    -- Overriding intended, fails if base types have no primitive Override

not overriding
procedure Override (X : Object);
    -- Overloading intended, fails if it hides any other Override

Note the suggested indentation. If you have neither, you revert to the Ada
95 rules. That turns out to be necessary in some cases for private types and
for generics.

This would have saved us a lot of headaches constructing Claw.

                      Randy.