Re: Non_Primitive Operations and Object.Operation Resolution

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>]

On 04/22/2016 03:24 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> My view is that anytime you have more than one visible (note: not
> necessarily *directly* visible) entity with the same name and same profile,
> but has different semantics, you have unnecessarily tricky code, regardless
> of the legality of that code. A reader of the code could very well refer to
> the wrong declaration (programmers are not great at figuring out the nuances
> of Ada visibility rules), and that could lead to problems during program
> maintance (especially if that maintenance is done by someone other than the
> original author). As such, I'd suggest that the routine in the body be named
> something like Safe_Element just to reduce this potential confusion. (I know
> *I* could very well use the wrong routine in debugging this package.)

It seems clear to me, but I guess I'm weird. Generic iterators (which I've been 
using since Ada 83 was the current version) seem clear to me, but I recall 
reading somewhere that some ARG members found them confusing.

> Still, legal Ada code ought to compile. even when it isn't a good idea. :-)

Absolutely.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Go and boil your bottoms."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
01