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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "G.B." <bauhaus@notmyhomepage.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada wikibook help needed (O-O)
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:09:47 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <odijed$c2v$1@dont-email.me>
References: <odhv2v$9vi$1@dont-email.me> <odi10p$ojq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Reply-To: nonlegitur@notmyhomepage.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:06:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="ed50f2cc1bf84b3669de21a134d2456e";
	logging-data="12383"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WwXBvddwuoR27XLumQ9GN+FRRB4xWLgE="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
In-Reply-To: <odi10p$ojq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X1Ax1Cn67PiKFy8kR7g4feN5fYI=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:46613
Date: 2017-04-23T18:09:47+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 23.04.17 12:52, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2017-04-23 12:22, G.B. wrote:
>
>> The page goes to some length to explain static dispatching
>> vs. dynamic dispatching, but fails to introduce "dispatching"
>> first, as a term, or to reference some suitable definition.
>
> It does in the section "Polymorphism, class-wide programming and dynamic dispatching". Dispatching is a mechanism of polymorphic call implementation for the case of dynamic polymorphism.
>
>> Then,
>>
>>   "A conversion to the class-wide type makes [components] visible again."
>>
>> Is "visible" correct?
>
> Why not?

Converting to T'Class does not make any components of T'Class visible
if they are private, at the point in source of that conversion.
In this sense, it is unfortunate that "view" in "view conversion"
might trigger an association with "visibility" in the reader's mind.
Yet, what is meant is that after view conversion, the object can
be seen as of any type in T'Class, whichever type it might be. What
view conversion does not mean is that any of the object so obtained
will have its components be seen. That's a matter of visibility, really,
not types, and is decided on a different axis.


>> Is it correct to say “static call” at all,
>
> Why not?

Because:

> A statically bound call.

... sounds both better and actually different to me: no context is needed
in order to disambiguate. The qualification avoids confusion. It helps
readers when they need to learn picking the right words and it helps
programmers express their intention also for later, when the context
(mechanics of dispatching) has disappeared.