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
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:38:47 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
> >I assume we would want that to be upwardly compatible, so the
> >"override" keyword might be optional, but cause a compilation
> >failure if the subprogram does not override a dispatching
> >subprogram.
> >
> >As for why it wasn't included in Ada95 to begin with, I suspect it
> >wasn't thought up in time, since other OO languages don't have
> >this feature either.
>
> Object Pascal had it in the early 80's.

We were aware of the concept, and did debate it during the 9X design
process.  As pointed out, other OOPs did have it.  I believe Modula-3
also had it.

In general, we debated an amazingly large number of ideas during the
9X design process, and a large proportion of the "wish list" items
that people mention these days were things we considered, but ultimately
rejected.  By far the most common reason for rejection was to minimize
the total number of new concepts in the revision.  In other words, there
were higher priority items, and the 9X revision "boat" could only carry a
finite number of new concepts.

So many good ideas, so little time...

> Bob Collins  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  <http://ratbert.cs.wm.edu>

-Tuck

ATOM RSS1 RSS2