Re: Ada2005

[Ray Blaak <blaak@telus.net>]

dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) writes:
> On 17 Dec 2001 09:50:30 -0800, Ray Blaak <blaak@telus.net> wrote:
> Maybe. Though, then you should allow funny constructions like:
> e."abs", when function "abs" (X: Ellipse) return ... is defined. Also
> you should support fully qualified forms like:
> 
> e.Geometry.Flat.Figures.Conic.Float_Figures.Ellipse.Draw (p);

Why? It is misleading, since object.something usually means something in the
context of object.

I would be perfectly willing to live with the restriction that one cannot do
e.Draw unless the Draw method was directly visible.

Alternatively, the compiler could be smarter, and look for the symbol "Draw"
in the context where the type of e was defined.

I also have no problem with e."abs", or e."+", given that one can already do
the strange "+"(1, 2) directly anyway.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
blaak@telus.net                                The Rhythm has my soul.