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!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Non_Primitive Operations and Object.Operation Resolution
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:37:04 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net;
 news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID: <nfeft8$ldt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <nf94tt$9iv$1@dont-email.me> <nfbd4t$4n4$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <nfbfj0$1m2$1@dont-email.me> <nfe8aq$r97$1@loke.gir.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:33:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="48b46be33beed75863f69afa437f956b";
	logging-data="21949"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ySqLH/Bs44shiEP9IGFeSpDVXfNBsvBg="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.0
In-Reply-To: <nfe8aq$r97$1@loke.gir.dk>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/oMGcmMvj+f3/X93Ghvl7trit14=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30252
Date: 2016-04-22T17:37:04-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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