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: 103376,131f06967722ab4b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:20:26 -0600 Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 2005? References: <1103344064.372396.51420@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1vj2pp9437gal.1b1lyqe3o973k$.dlg@40tude.net> <1ttqv5msigzua$.12l6jurw2zmd6$.dlg@40tude.net> <1j02qdx8hrd7o.1d5se652uerrr$.dlg@40tude.net> <1myqjpkliibqc$.qwe4gdpt4pi0.dlg@40tude.net> From: jayessay Organization: Tangible Date: 28 Dec 2004 12:48:45 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.6.25.79 X-Trace: sv3-31AJa1GjjWW+uQ8Eu8XOX6sjZpVs8WxAWq90CdLOUydENRmFcrVQRYmrZSK3c1lBGc1dkv5Uj7hB1Zz!YxGQK4ZPvCpnB+abx8KeSaMVjetxCK9OyzIOn6J5HjXzDVw3oWCl2XsbuU2uNvVz+z7eqmy6PlkM X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.22 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7264 Date: 2004-12-28T12:48:45-05:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus writes: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > : Nope, in Ada it is the equivalent of "method is final and defined to raise > : Constraint_Error". It is a fundamentally different case. > > What is the fundament, then? The cases I am talking about are situations where constraint error is raised in exactly the situations that "method not found" is raised in something like Smalltalk. They can arise from legal view conversions to effect runtime dispatching. > :>>> Ah, so you define it away. > > Or invent a new one? I think you have the correct interpretation. DAK seems to want to simply redefine what MD means. You can do that, but don't expect people familiar with the definition in wide use for years to pay it much attention. > What did the makers of GNAT think when they invented the error message, > > "operation can be dispatching in only one type"? I see you do understand this. Yes, the GNAT folks are giving the exact correct error here and it is saying that you cannot dispatch across multiple types nor that a dispatching operation will automatically redispath to the secondary operation from the primary. > So at the very least there must exists a notion of MD that isn't > available with Ada. Exactly. /Jon -- 'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com