Re: Ada Annoyances

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

> It is frequently used design pattern to leave some parts of construction 
> used by the parent type to the children.

I have never heard the name of this "design pattern", but if I understand the description correctly, I can do that in C++. So there is no need for anything more evolved.

> The point is that construction 
> requires both early (type-specific) and late (class-wide) initializers.

The example I have shown demonstrates this.

> [...]
> > Most importantly, useObject does not know that it gets called from
> > constructors, because it might be called from any other context as well.
> > It might be even in a different translation unit.
> > 
> > This shows that dispatching is *not* "killed" and whatever
> > environment  heating takes place,
> 
> I don't see how it shows that, or anything.

The useObject function performs a dispatching call and it does so even if the function itself is called in the middle of some object construction. So, the dispatching is not "killed" while the object is being constructed. It still works properly, with the type-safe range of dispatch.

> The only right thing [...]

For me the only right thing is type safety. If it is compromised, like in Ada, then the language got it wrong.

> Everything else in 
> the C++ construction model is wrong.

C++ has stronger type safety than Ada in this particular context. I'm fine with it. If it's wrong for you, let's agree to disagree.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com