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: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.230.98 with SMTP id sx2mr13423802pbc.1.1335838657794; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:17:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: r9ni117983pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.x-privat.org!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X? Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:17:31 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5> <1qepvaumldb5u.1q8eyzla8dyp8.dlg@40tude.net> <14f21yy6r7n40.v7wdf6rhdgjz.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1335838656 1565 69.95.181.76 (1 May 2012 02:17:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 02:17:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2012-04-30T21:17:31-05:00 List-Id: "Robert A Duff" wrote in message news:wccipgihd99.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... ... > I'm not sure what you mean. I'm suggesting (and, I think, Randy was) a > rule where everything is overloadable, and if you have two things called > X, neither hides the other. This is the way use-visibility work in Ada, > but only for subprograms. Single namespace. For Ada, I wasn't suggesting any change in hiding rules (even subprograms can be hidden in Ada, after all). I was just suggesting that objects are overloadable by their profile, which would be the same as a parameterless function returning the type of the object. I think changing the hiding rules would have to be incompatible, I think just adding some overloading would not be incompatible (but since Steve Baird never analyzed it, I could be wrong :-). That's because I didn't plan on any change in visibility for things with the *right* profile, so if the program is currently legal, it would remain legal (either other declarations have the wrong profile or remain hidden). What would change is that programs which are currently illegal (because of use-clause cancelation) would become legal if exactly one of the candidates matched. In any case, this idea would take some careful analysis, and its main purpose was to make "integrated packages" more possible -- which I'm not sure is ever really going to matter. Randy.