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 10:02:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "David C. Hoos" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The old "Object.Method" syntax debate Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:02:21 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <254c16a.0305210726.485125de@posting.google.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:37600 Date: 2003-05-21T12:02:21-05:00 List-Id: Marc Criley looked up the AI and sent it to me. His post should show up in the newsgroup when Google gets around to it. (http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00252.TXT) addresses this issue, and appears to do so in a positive light. "David C. Hoos" wrote in message news:vcn7svfjbannd6@corp.supernews.com... > 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. > > My current work is C#, and I haven't yet had the time to try A#, but > I hope to get around to it, soon. > > > "Marc A. Criley" wrote in message > news:254c16a.0305210726.485125de@posting.google.com... > > Yeah, I'm bringing this up. Kill the thread if your eyes just rolled > > up into your head %-) > > > > The reason I'm mentioning this is because of something I just read in > > Martin Carlisle, Sward, and Humphries' paper "Weaving Ada 95 into the > > .Net Environment" (http://www.adapower.net/a_sharp/asharp.pdf). > > > > While this has been available online for awhile I only now read it in > > my recent issue of Ada Letters. > > > > What caught my attention was an almost peripheral mention of modifying > > GNAT to recognize the Object.Method syntax: "Ada 95 has often been > > criticized for making the syntax of dispatching method calls the same > > as the imperative procedure calls. [...] We have modified the > > compiler to allow the same object.method syntax [...] We have also > > performed this modification to the Windows 3.15 version of GNAT. It > > required only 127 non-blank, non-comment lines of Ada code. We expect > > this syntax will make it easier for students to understand > > object-oriented programming. Since we also support the standard Ada 95 > > syntax, we still have the nicer Ada syntax for operators (x+y instead > > of x."+"(y))." > > > > I've pretty much always thought of this as a non-issue not worth all > > the bandwidth that's been expended on it, since it's a matter of > > syntactic sugar. > > > > But reading that Carlisle's team changed only 127 SLOC in GNAT 3.15 to > > support it, I'm thinking that if it's that cheap to change in a > > compiler (and I know there's all the regression testing and LRM > > updates and so on that would have to accompany such a move), then > > maybe it's worth it to allow the alternate syntax and remove one of > > the admittedly vacuous objections to Ada raised by the language's > > critics. > > > > Marc A. Criley > > _______________________________________________ > > comp.lang.ada mailing list > > comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org > > http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada > > > > > _______________________________________________ > comp.lang.ada mailing list > comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org > http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada >