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-Thread: 103376,999932ecc319322a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: advice on package design
Date: 17 Mar 2005 09:04:26 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccpsxy1i8l.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <1110212638.336123.298580@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <1gbk0qx2sgzpg$.sltzfssofla8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc64zw63j6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <3jok3ghqqls8$.1rrsonb8jsurt$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccsm30ttj5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <88zllqj1min5$.fqqxis9i327d$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcck6o7s4q4.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <18e9a92kz25wu$.8b965bel5vef$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01-e.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1111068267 21243 69.38.147.31 (17 Mar 2005 14:04:27
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:04:27 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9544
Date: 2005-03-17T09:04:26-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> Presently it is not explicit. Syntactically overriding is undistinguishable
> from declaring a new operation. This is IMO bad. It should be sort of:
> 
> procedure Override (X : Object) is ????;
>    -- Overriding intended, fails if base types have no primitive Override
> procedure Override (X : Object);
>    -- Overloading intended, fails if it hides any other Override

I think Ada 2005 has something like that.

> I agree with the idea, but I think that hiding should appear in a
> declarative part. Less probably it should also qualify the thing being
> hidden (like renames does):

I don't believe in declarative parts.  I think declare/begin/end
should not be required just because I want to declare a constant
or something.

- Bob