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: 103376,26a21b9e317dc639 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.66.85.133 with SMTP id h5mr4190498paz.23.1353536372084; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:19:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: 6ni4154pbd.1!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Access type to member procedure of instance (Object Oriented programming in Ada) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:19:29 -0600 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <9b0bcb37-8ae3-440f-af4f-a796702e4250@googlegroups.com> <49cdda31-d0bd-42f2-8076-65504105d07e@googlegroups.com> <2d141696-2cd2-4805-8c51-cf6620abc9ce@googlegroups.com> <1ilx4ms9xk5h8.pz5jsnqrogye.dlg@40tude.net> <4ayu88ck8dkd.1qcy3gnnf7ove.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1353536371 2376 69.95.181.76 (21 Nov 2012 22:19:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:19:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Date: 2012-11-21T16:19:29-06:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:4ayu88ck8dkd.1qcy3gnnf7ove.dlg@40tude.net... > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:51:41 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote: > >> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message >> news:1ilx4ms9xk5h8.pz5jsnqrogye.dlg@40tude.net... >> ... >>>No idea. It is a great mystery to me what makes into the language and >>>what >>>does not. Considering this one: >> >> Obviously, you can read the AIs and the meeting minutes to find out why >> things were done the way they are. > > These do not explain the decisions made. It is people who support some AIs > and do not support others. If that's true, then I'm doing a bad job taking notes. I try to record everything interesting that people say on a topic, and it is usually the case that people are asked to explain their positions on a topic. Obviously, not everyone who votes explains their opinion, but since close votes are considered failures, almost all of the reasoning should be explained. There are some discussions that don't last long enough for reasons to be recorded, but those are almost always rote issues that were previously discussed (either at a meeting or via e-mail). >>> 1. Why closures at all? >> >> I assume we're talking about Ada's "prefixed views" (closures are >> something >> else to me). > > I meant member pointers here, which are a form of a closure. I don't see > strong case for these. The standard OO model that passes a proper > object[s] > and then calls to an operation of a statically known name, maybe, > dispatching is the way to do things. Functional programming mess, please. Unfortunately, I have no more idea what you mean by "member pointers" than you did by "closures". Ada doesn't have "members" or "pointers", and while the latter is rather pedantic, the former isn't (Ada has components and primitive operations and neither can really have pointers to them). So I'll let this pass with no comment... Randy.