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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b6e97963d32ee242 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-21 12:55:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!not-for-mail From: "Bobby D. Bryant" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The old "Object.Method" syntax debate Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:54:05 -0600 Organization: dis- Message-ID: References: <254c16a.0305210726.485125de@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-80-12.ots.utexas.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu 1053546871 23093 128.83.219.12 (21 May 2003 19:54:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@utexas.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 19:54:31 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Pan/0.14.0 (I'm Being Nibbled to Death by Cats!) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:37613 Date: 2003-05-21T13:54:05-06:00 List-Id: On Wed, 21 May 2003 10:47:38 -0500, David C. Hoos wrote: > This was brought up in a forum regarding enhancements for Ada0X, at the > SIG-Ada meeting last December, and the consensus was it should be done, > so it probably will. > > In defense of the charge that the objection is "vacuous," I would point > out that that notation prevents the need to fully qualify the subprogram > name (in the absence of use clauses) when invoking the subprogram for an > object which is in scope. > > Having worked in the .NET environment for quite a while, it's really > nice to be able to type an object name, then the dot, and immediately > see a little pop-up-window showing all of the available operations, and > being able to select from the list instead of typing the full subprogram > name. IMO if the syntax is actually desirable (not a given, again IMO) then the correct solution would be to design a next-generation language that uses it _instead_ of what Ada uses, rather than cluttering up an already "big" language with two independent layers of syntax. -- Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas