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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.197.193 with SMTP id iw1mr11133726pbc.0.1335590893383; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Path: r9ni107049pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X? Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:56:36 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5> <1qepvaumldb5u.1q8eyzla8dyp8.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1335534996 15876 192.74.137.71 (27 Apr 2012 13:56:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:56:36 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:/+vQ4sCJct3dZTpf39+gaJEcqbE= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 2012-04-27T09:56:36-04:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > OK, but there must be a way to ensure that each non-anonymous entity would > have at least one unique name valid for all contexts were it is accessible. > It is already a problem. In my language, every named thing must have a unique name. It can also have an overloaded name. So it doesn't have trouble with "pragma Mumble(Overloaded);", as Ada does. >> Most languages >> can only overload on parameters, which is way insufficient (objects usually >> don't have parameters, and having all objects the same fixes nothing), but >> of course Ada can. The problem is mostly one of compatibility; > > More overloading cannot make legal programs illegal. I don't think that's true, at least if you want to avoid Beaujolais-like effects. That is, if X hides an outer X, a legal program can refer to the inner X. If the language were changed so the two X's are both visible, and overloaded, it could be ambiguous. Hiding is evil. It's a preference rule, and it already causes Beaujolais-like effects. - Bob