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,fba93c19bb4e7dbd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-16 19:02:46 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.abs.net!ash.uu.net!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Q: Endless loop by dispatching Date: 16 Jul 2003 21:57:29 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <3F0ED2C8.6080409@snafu.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1058407049 9774 199.172.62.241 (17 Jul 2003 01:57:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:57:29 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40377 Date: 2003-07-16T21:57:29-04:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov writes: > One should invent a good syntax suggar for this. Which is rather > difficult. There are actually two things in it: > > 1. There should be a way to declare some primitive operation saying > that it cannot be overriden completely. One might wish it for things > like Initialize/Finalize. Then probably there should be a way to say > where an override is allowed to add something. > > 2. During overriding one should specifiy where the override(s) places > the extension. I think that it should be specified in the body, while > the specification should only say that it gets overridden. Common Lisp (CLOS) has some stuff like this. > The question is syntax and a good balance between 1. and 2., i.e > between contract and implementation. The most complicated cases would > emerge from things like Adjust, I suppose. > > It is also related to an ability to explicitly specify that a > subroutine is an overriding, not overloading, to avoid undesired > overloading in case ot typo errors. I do not know whether there is an > AI on that. If yes, they should be considered together. Yes, there is such an AI. - Bob