Re: What would you like in Ada202X?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:lh3gjjdhbg01.k1bt0u2astpl$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:23:37 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
...
>> (2) Generic in-out object parameters (almost never used, hard to 
>> implement,
>> probably buggy because of the first two);
>
> What about passing a storage pool to a generic?

One of the reasons I didn't propose getting rid of anonymous access is that 
they're really handy for solving the occasional oddity. Passing an "in" 
object that is an anonynous access to Root_Storage_Pool'Class handles this 
need nicely, and doesn't require pages of mechanism in the RM and thousands 
of lines of never used code in a compiler. (I worry more about the latter 
than the former -- I'd never use an "in out" generic object even if it was 
supposedly the right solution since you're much more likely to get stopped 
by a compiler bug.)

>> (3) Interfaces (buys almost nothing over abstract types, except a huge
>> amount of complication in definition and implementation);
>
> Hold on, should it mean that you are for true MI? I cannot believe it!
> (:-))

I've concluded that I'm pretty much against all forms of MI. Which I realize 
is probably too strong, but surely Interfaces isn't it. I'm definitely 
against any mechanism that you can only use once, which is the way a 
particular interface works. That leads to silliness like the "no hidden 
interfaces" rule (because otherwise you could destroy privacy by adding the 
"right" interface; alternatively, you could destroy everyone's sanity by 
determining what routine to dispatch to by what visibility you have).

Solutions to this mess probably exist, but I'd rather spend my limited 
efforts on earth on something that actually will help my programs (say 
exception contracts, more static capabilities for pre and postconditions, 
etc.).

                                                  Randy.