TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced 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:
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:01:14 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
Matthew Heaney wrote:
> > 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)?

(I'm not Tuck, but I'll answer.)

Because a vendor can add a pragma.  You can't alter the actual
language and still have Ada.

If vendors start providing this, and people find it useful, that
would be a good argument for working the concept into the next
language revision.

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.

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