TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:43:54 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
Richard Riehle wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> I always appreciate your insight into these issues. Mr. Mize wants to
> implement a
>
>                object.method(parameter list)
>
> syntax.

Well, just to be clear.  I'm *not* personally tied to that syntax.
My interest in in helping transition people who find value in it.

Its value is that it calls out specifically the object that is to
receive the message.  I would consider a recipient-first parameter
ordering to be just as useful for that.

Of course, you can do that now.  But it's implicit in your code, just
as the concept of enumeration is implicit in integer codes.  I would
think it useful to be able to state "this is a recipient-first type"
and have the compiler help catch errors.

I think this would meet the real concern behind the objection raised
by many OO practitioners.

Best,
Sam Mize

--
Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam

ATOM RSS1 RSS2