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: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.ecp.fr!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: A bad counterintuitive behaviour of Ada about OO
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 17:18:19 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <ls3ibb$ksu$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <lrrdm1$u6n$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <932kntuq5rrr.8sumwibqrufn.dlg@40tude.net> <lrrha0$6mh$3@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1ohy7vnbntskq$.h139ov04mlxu$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <b54d73cd-a0ad-4755-9923-f02cfa43f81d@googlegroups.com>
 <lrvf3f$sd0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1a329b5c-49d6-419d-91a2-ebeebc2d9b3e@googlegroups.com>
 <ls2326$44l$1@dont-email.me>
 <cc1e7f8d-e1f6-4e37-833c-da745e5a1a3c@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1407536299 21406 69.95.181.76 (8 Aug 2014 22:18:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 22:18:19 +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: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21590
Date: 2014-08-08T17:18:19-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Maciej Sobczak" <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:cc1e7f8d-e1f6-4e37-833c-da745e5a1a3c@googlegroups.com...
...
>In particular (1), I have pointed that that Ada's handling of dispatch 
>during
> initialization/finalization is *unsafe*. Obviously I'm not going to buy 
> the
> argument that a missing feature here is a price for added safety!

No, all you did is point out the (obvious) fact that Ada's handling of 
object initialization (or lack thereof) is unsafe. How that works for 
Initialization is just a tiny corner of the whole. It really does not make 
any sense to try to make some corner safer when the underpinnings are many 
times less safe to begin with. (In addition, this is not a solvable 
problem -- there are many types where no defined order of initialization 
would be safe. [Requiring the programmer to define such a thing simply 
provides an illusion of safety -- programmers make mistakes, and the 
consequences are much worse when safety appears to be achieved.])

There's a strong argument that Ada handles this area wrong from the 
beginning, but that will have to be fixed in other languages (we've done all 
we can for Ada).

                                                       Randy.