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: 103376,8f8cea8602e61aba X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: The Red Language Date: 1997/09/18 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 273545942 References: <340E2DC5.25D7@worldnet.att.net> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew said <<> Perhaps because it's harder to implement. In C++, you can do overload > resolution in a single bottom up pass. Start at the leaves of the > expression, and propagate the type of each expression up. In Ada, you > need to propagate *sets* of types (or sets of interpretations, or some > such) up the tree, and then you have to do a second (top down) pass to > propagate the information back to the leaves.>> I think only a non-implementor would say this. The two passes are not a significant complexity issue. The difficulties in overloading resolution in Ada (or C++ for that matter) have to do with special situations and special rules that must be taken into acccount. The basic 2-pass resolution algorityhm is trivial.