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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a270a1fc28d4f812
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-22 03:41:52 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-048-147.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OOD in Ada?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:47:08 +0200
Message-ID: <af1k9d$ao539$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
References: <3d135676$0$8511$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-048-147.arcor-ip.net (145.254.48.147)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1024742510 11277417 145.254.48.147 (16 [77047])
User-Agent: KNode/0.4
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26593
Date: 2002-06-23T00:47:08+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

David Crocker wrote:

> 2. The lack of a "dot" notation (or anything similar) for calling a member
> method, making the code hard to read and hard to determine where dynamic
> binding may be taking place.

Firstly, Ada has "dot" notation for objects of task and protected types.

Secondly, a "dot" notation is incompatible with multiple dispatch (several 
controlling arguments / result). Then the idea that whether an argument is 
controlled must be defined by its position is the parameter list seems not 
very good, especially for a language that has named parameter association 
and an ability to explicitly specify whether an argument is dispatching. 
Honestly it resembles FORTRAN's line continutation character that should be 
put in the sixth column of the next punched card. So I would not consider 
"dot" notation as something required by OO, rather an opposite it is a 
relic of early OO languages. However, I would wellcome some sort of 
renaming statement allowing funny:

Y := X.Sin;

for those who wants it.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de