Re: Ada 2005?

[jayessay <nospam@foo.com>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> In Ada all choices are statically known. The only problem is that you
> cannot override non-diagonal elements of the dispatch table.

This is incorrect and it is easy to construct examples that are legal
but will raise constraint error at runtime at a point of attempted
method dispatch.


> >:>>> Ah, so you define it away.
> > 
> > Or invent a new one?
> 
> Where is any other?

The one everyone but you seems to use.


> > Obviously, "more than" in the above sentence isn't only about counting the
> > number of parameters.  You could equally well say that Ada templates
> > are recursive because they are when you limit the recursion depth to 0.
> > 
> > What did the makers of GNAT think when they invented the error message,
> > 
> >  "operation can be dispatching in only one type"?
> 
> Exactly what it tells: no dispatch on distinct types. MD /= dispatch in
> distinct type hierarchies.

More sophistry.  No one said that MD _requires_ dispatch in distinct
type hierarchies, only that it _supports_ this.  Multiple dispatch
does _require_ dispatch on/across multiple types, that is the
definition used everywhere except by you.

> > So at the very least there must exists a notion of MD that isn't
> > available with Ada.
> 
> Right. "Ada has MD" = "Ada has some cases of MD".

More sophistry.

> It does not mean that Ada has full or proper MD. It all started when
> my opponent disagreed with a trivial statement: "... it (Ada's MD)
> is very limited and cannot be counted as true multiple dispatch".

I think this indicates the real problem: "my opponent".  You seem to
see this as some idiotic zero-sum game instead of a discussion.  No
wonder you never seem learn anything.


/Jon

-- 
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com