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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:29:29 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lip31q$gd8$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com>
 <8bhozh836pyt$.1qctlysud0s2q$.dlg@40tude.net> <lhcv8r$iol$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <1cdsyxjzsfgzm.1synpaujysv21$.dlg@40tude.net> <lhi3ia$bos$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <1aa804jg9qq4o$.wdiq33yo621l.dlg@40tude.net> <lhviiu$q77$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <yl8s1sbhw0lw.1bhypcrvreord.dlg@40tude.net> <li217v$uvk$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <1w6eh0aiksmdh$.1h16p7y0b8c6h.dlg@40tude.net> <li5354$c8e$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <17twpp4p8u7o$.1idvzaaio4f3t$.dlg@40tude.net> <li76jb$bnj$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <16388p09ph28u$.1mglp0rm7pli9$.dlg@40tude.net> <li9nne$1mf$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <9cm2e094hvj7.sj0t2sh2komn.dlg@40tude.net> <lihrjd$pqv$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <f2mjap6bd64o$.1kk55f3m1qbn1$.dlg@40tude.net> <lik879$36b$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <1wchtiw4r35px.1pwedxqesqlr4.dlg@40tude.net> <limu41$tj4$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <1239ezez4bgf7.e2ihtjo019ka.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1397755771 16808 69.95.181.76 (17 Apr 2014 17:29:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:29:31 +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
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185786
Date: 2014-04-17T12:29:29-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:1239ezez4bgf7.e2ihtjo019ka.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:53:05 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
>> news:1wchtiw4r35px.1pwedxqesqlr4.dlg@40tude.net...
>> ...
>>>> The reason here is that maintainers need to be free to ADD new
>>>> operations/entities without changing the behavior of any pre-existing
>>>> client (which necessarily does not use those new operations/entities).
>>>
>>> Again, no difference between SD and MD. If you add a new primitive
>>> operation (not override an existing one), there cannot be any effect on
>>> the clients because they did not use the operation.
>>
>> But that's not now and never has been true. Why? Because the new 
>> operation
>> can have the same name as some existing operation, and the entire point 
>> of
>> this discussion is that preference rules in overloading resolution have
>> potentially bad effects in such cases.
>
> No, it can have the same name only if the signature is different. That
> would be overloading, thus whatever rules of preference for MD are, they
> would not apply.
>
> If you want to say that overloading is a can of worms. Yes it is. But that
> has nothing to do with MD vs. SD and ambiguity resolution there.

Well, talking about Ada, there is only overloading resolution. The same 
rules apply to all calls, there is nothing special about primitive 
operations. One could certainly imagine other rules, but they wouldn't fit 
into the framework of Ada resolution without a lot of reworking.

Like a lot of your ideas, they would make much more sense in a new language 
rather than in the context of the existing Ada language.

                                      Randy.