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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.204.153.209 with SMTP id l17mr529853bkw.4.1335400652190;
        Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 h15ni165896bkw.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:37:30 +0200
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.wdcj0snyule2fv@douda-yannick>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <9af5eaaa-1c48-4455-a8e8-39dd9ee8092d@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: K5u1qGRa7Tbvmpyn4gf6UQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.62 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Date: 2012-04-26T02:37:30+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:14:47 +0200, ytomino <aghia05@gmail.com> a =C3=A9=
crit:

> Delphi(or C#)'s method resolution clauses.
>
> Java-style interface introduced in Ada2005 makes primitive names to
> global.
> Method resolution clause restore them to local.
>
> type I1 is interface;
> procedure X (Obj : I1);
> type I2 is interface;
> procedure X (Obj : I2);
>
> type T is new I1 and I2;
> procedure X (Obj : T); -- conflicted!!!
>
> If method resolution clause exists:
>
> type T is new I1 and I2;
> overriding(I1.X) procedure X1 (Obj : T);
> overriding(I2.X) procedure X2 (Obj : T);

The above may still present issues with overloading. Imagine X exist wit=
h  =

multiple signatures, for both I1 and I2: as your proposal does not refer=
  =

the precise signature, this would still be ambiguous.

I did not checked, but I feel there already is a way to avoid this  =

ambiguity, using a renaming for the different Xs, prior to the definitio=
n  =

of T.

-- =

=E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1]
=E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.=
=E2=80=9D [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers=
ity