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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,66bc6b039f1e005d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Dale Stanbrough Subject: Re: Three simple questions Date: 2000/10/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 679688670 References: <2BED68CA963D6D55.A78776F656DA0452.75A61ED22116F1B6@lp.airnews.net> <39e2588f.21565740@news.demon.co.uk> <39E2D51E.D0122F20@bton.ac.uk> X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 971179488 144.132.95.55 (Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:04:48 EST) Organization: RMIT User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:04:48 EST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-10-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John English wrote: > It gets even more fun with OOP; you think you've got a method called > DoThisNow and override it, but it's actually called doThisNow; the > result is two methods, one called doThisNow and the other called > DoThisNow, which are of course completely unrelated... and the > compiler will say nothing. Of course Ada has exactly the same problem, in that if you misspell the name of a subprogram when trying to override, you are not informed by the compiler (e.g. consider Finalize and Finalise). I think i like the Eiffel method better, where you explicity state that you are overriding an inherited method. Dale