TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Matthew Heaney <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:24:46 GMT
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]> (message from Tucker Taft on Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:32:03 -0400)
X-To:
Reply-To:
Matthew Heaney <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
> > I agree in general, but there is one pitfall in the case of OOP (which by
> > the way is not unique to Ada).  If you misspell the name of a subprogram
> > intended to override an otherwise implicitly inherited operation, then you
> > do not override it even  though you think you have.  ...
>
> A pragma like "pragma Overrides(...)" would seem to be a good thing
> to have here.  This should go on the "list" of useful pragmas for
> vendors to agree on...
>
> -Tuck

Just out of curiosity: Why wasn't this included as a feature of the
language to begin with?  And why a pragma instead of a keyword (as I
suggested in my earlier post)?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2