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=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5a88548f1bcf3510
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.81.195 with SMTP id c3mr1033777pay.44.1353069590747;
        Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:39:50 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 6ni89538pbd.1!nntp.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 06:39:50 -0600
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:39:50 -0500
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482719@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Overring function and its returned type
References: <op.wnhvol1wule2fv@cardamome>
 <97a6946f-a707-4dd3-872b-9e851fcf9462@googlegroups.com>
 <cYydnSvuUM0cmzjNRVn_vwA@giganews.com>
 <62ba75d8-8a6c-4d75-be37-3322f683714d@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <62ba75d8-8a6c-4d75-be37-3322f683714d@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <w--dnVaLevWLqTvNRVn_vwA@giganews.com>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-m6p6RfpRwdnBrDv5Pig41MKeoytjT+5FfrRlXli+D+bTRHe7Rukw+dylRtAGn05IvrUW/8qFUjG89vA!xBH3rDBwcw1b54mAIfVhvPQHrUaZOwsJdI669UuVxuwwgjR1lp3ycCtH99eccjk=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2086
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-11-16T07:39:50-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11/16/2012 05:40 AM, Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> The problem is that this single example is very artificial and
> represents some corner case that might actually never materialize in
> any of our projects. There are many more examples that are practical
> and do not hit any corner cases of overload resolution and that could
> be easily handled - and therefore could become an added value in the
> type system.


Yes, good point. I think it's in keeping with C++'s philosophy to allow 
what seems reasonable and, like you said, only complain if a problem 
actually arises. I can see the value of that approach. Yet I wonder if 
it increases the risk of an "unrelated" change breaking an existing code 
base by introducing an ambiguity where none existed before.

Peter