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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: Cesar Rabak <csrabak@yahoo.com.br>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:31:25 -0300
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <h4ffhg$gnh$1@aioe.org>
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <h41n4c$pm0$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <24b1e02c-ef00-4adf-be11-e65277fc095c@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.0907231154390.9707@Bluewhite64.example.net>
 <h4b26n$r71$1@aioe.org>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.0907241613010.10166@Bluewhite64.example.net>
 <wcc7hxxdaa3.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: xrijvtPb6x0VD3jpDlCJGA.user.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.7.9
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090513-0, 13/05/2009), Outbound message
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TOdXguCfJfbFnS+6L8Kq7Hwn7z4=
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:373 comp.lang.ada:6378
Date: 2009-07-25T14:31:25-03:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff escreveu:
> Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> writes:
> 
>> I suggest that you flip back a page and note that Page 93 untruthfully
>> contained:
>> "[..]
>>
>> In Ada[83], for example, a package may contain several routines with the same name, as
>> long as the signatures of these routines are different, where the signature of a routine is
>> defined here by the number and types of its arguments. (The general notion of signature
>> also includes the type of the results, if any, but Ada resolves overloading on the basis of
>> the argument only.) [..]
>>
>> [..]"
> 
> I didn't look up the above quote from Meyer, but assuming he wrote that,
> he was mistaken.  Ada DOES use result types to help resolve overloading.
> This was true in Ada 83, and it's still true the latest version
> (Ada 2005).
> 

You're right obviously that the result types (a.k.a. return type) is 
used, but for the discussion of constructors of a specific class this is 
moot.