Re: Constructors with multiple inheritance

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"Rego, P." <pvrego@gmail.com> writes:

> Well, the prefixed notation if I understood well was made exactly for
> filling this. For me it's not just sugar, since I use it frequently.

Heh?  "Sugar" doesn't mean "infrequently used".

> I can even cite the Rationale for Ada 2005 pg. 33, "the Ada 95 object
> oriented model has been criticized for not being really OO since the
> notation for applying a subprogram (method) to an object emphasizes
> the subprogram and not the object.".

Yes, it's true that Ada 95 was criticized in that way.
However, I think such criticism was complete nonsense.
Whatever "object oriented" means, surely it doesn't have
anything to do with notation.

It's fine to use the prefix notation if you think it's more readable,
but you shouldn't attach any semantic significance to it -- it really is
just syntactic sugar.

> ...So that's why I try not to use the package.function approach, and
> one of the premisses of using the prefixed notation is "Y is the first
> parameter of Op".

You can't use an operation of an object to create that same object,
because it doesn't exist yet.

- Bob