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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6b6619eb9cada212
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Help me to chose between ADA 95 and C++
Date: 1999/12/14
Message-ID: <uwvqhbbxy.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 560634863
References: <01bf37fb$a91afb60$0564a8c0@IS-D2D04C.test>
 <B46461D2.259F%Harald.Schmidt@tomcat.de>
 <829rbv$a8m$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net> <01bf3e32$0b9dc880$022a6282@dieppe>
 <385112AE.7E2CFA9@rdel.co.uk>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.9912131540530.6417-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <38564CD6.F13F69FB@rdel.co.uk> <m3u2llv5rt.fsf@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Preben Randhol <randhol@pvv.org> writes:

> | Interestingly, many of the OO related pitfalls are evident in Ada 95 and
> | C++, because the way the two languages work is not actually that
> | different, for example attempting to override a method, but mis-typing
> | the name in the derived class making it a new method rather than an
> | overriden one.
> 
> What is your solution to this? To me it sounds like the programmer
> does not proof-read his code if this is a _real_ problem. :-)

I just wasted a couple of hours on a closely related problem, which I
propose we call "the snark effect" (see thread "hunting snarks"). I
changed the profile of the base type operation (one parameter changed
from "in out" to "access" to avoid an accesibility problem). But I
forgot to change one of the operations in one of the (many) derived
types. In similar situations, Ada catches such errors (ie, change spec
but forget to change body). I'd like Ada to catch this as well.

-- Stephe