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: 103376,436e4ce138981b82
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-12 10:11:45 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-038-226.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: abstract sub programs overriding
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:19:28 +0100
Organization: At home
Message-ID: <c2sugv$1vp41f$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <1078849973.701176@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <b8kt40d3jti7o3r287m4gae4r6hrt1nvus@4ax.com>
 <1078924150.268074@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <at8050lmd96obnra145knv84niav1ebfrs@4ax.com>
 <1079014276.527406@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <67u0505uu3gfmlt8p28e9jkaco0nljquut@4ax.com>
 <1079019616.621636@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <qc3150ls7h74bk9hdvbaos589iiu5pm321@4ax.com>
 <1079026002.840030@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <n9t2501elclt1j9hfevqu3n8ciqf926bio@4ax.com>
 <1079097006.572713@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <h5g3509jghegrfkpt06n5q56ctsjmoolr4@4ax.com>
 <1079103394.507060@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-038-226.arcor-ip.net (145.254.38.226)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1079115104 66883631 I 145.254.38.226 ([77047])
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6279
Date: 2004-03-12T19:19:28+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> C++ does everything right and anything else is not Ada.
> 
> This has nothing to do with programming language wars,
> but perhaps with English language wars. When you state
> categorically "So when T is view-convertible to T'Class,
> then two constructors have to be applied: one of T, one
> of T'Class. In the constructor of T you cannot dispatch,
> in the constructor of T'Class you can do it safely." it
> certainly sounds like you are saying that this is what
> Ada does. But this is not what Ada does, it is what you
> would like Ada to do.

No it is how Ada does it. Here is an example:

package Foo is
   type A is new Ada.Finalization.Controlled with null record;
   procedure Initialize (Object : in out A);
   type In_B is new Ada.Finalization.Controlled with null record;
   procedure Initialize (Object : in out In_B);
   type B is new A with record
      Field : In_B;
   end record;
end Foo;

with Ada.Text_IO;  use Ada.Text_IO;
package body Foo is
   procedure Initialize (Object : in out A) is
   begin
      Put_Line ("Init A");
   end Initialize ;
   procedure Initialize (Object : in out In_B) is
   begin
      Put_Line ("Init field of B");
   end Initialize;
end Foo;

Initializing of an object of B will print:

Init field of B
Init A

showing that Initialize for A is called *after* initialization of Field of
B. It means that A's Initialize may safely use any field of B.

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