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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a52c822fc0dbb23
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!cernne03.cern.ch!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <no.spam@no.spam.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Rational for not making cursor tagged in Containers
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:26:08 +0200
Organization: CERN News
Message-ID: <f0a0vi$7ii$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
References: <1176998738.656903.141250@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <wccodlkz0ej.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1177010938.200523.325290@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <wccodlkdrf3.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1a8y2vakorfhx.225uqh4hifpd$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1177031884.096796.106370@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
 <1ixi961jqu0qx.1dtcursmkem45$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pb-d-128-141-44-95.cern.ch
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: cernne03.cern.ch 1177061170 7762 128.141.44.95 (20 Apr 2007 09:26:10
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@@cern.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:26:10 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221)
In-Reply-To: <1ixi961jqu0qx.1dtcursmkem45$.dlg@40tude.net>
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15141
Date: 2007-04-20T11:26:08+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> A confusion is in assumption that some arguments of an operation are more
> arguments than others.

There is some rationale for this, however.
With the traditionally abstract OO, operations are executed as a result 
of messages that are sent to objects. Now that indeed gives some objects 
more focus than others.

This:

a.op(b);

means (supposedly) that "op" message is sent to object "a" and the 
payload of the message is "b".

I agree that it introduces some asymetry that is not necessarily needed.
I mean - the above abstraction is not necessarily the best one, but 
serves me well as an explanation of the a.op(b) issue.

> Another is that primitive operations belong to the
> object (instance).

No, but it makes sense to think that they belong to the type of some object.

> The third confusion raises from incompatibility of the
> prefix notation with multi-methods and multiple dispatching operations.

True. But then, the above messaging abstractions needs to be extended to 
cover "multicasts". :-)

>> Other
>> advantage of prefix notation is that I do not have to fully qualify
>> nor apply use clause.
> 
> When there is something wrong with use-clauses *that* should be fixed.

I agree that the lack of ADL (Argument-Dependent Lookup) in Ada sucks.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/
Programming    : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/