Re: I'm facing an issue with: call to abstract procedure must be dispatching

[Serge Robyns <serge.robyns@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 22:09:13 UTC+1, Dmitry A. Kazakov  wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:21:31 -0800 (PST), Serge Robyns wrote:
> 
> If you really need mix-in then better do it like this:
> 
>    type T_Abstract_Data_Store
>       (  Clients : not null access T_Abstract_Client'Class;
>          Store2 : not null access T_Abstract_Store2'Class
>       )  is abstract tagged limited record
> 
> This would add a bit more safety, much needed when using access types.

Was considering this option, I haven't used this construct yet.  This is a place where reading the ALRM just gives headaches without a clue of the use cases.  And guess what, I just have been hit by a forgotten assignment ....  Then it really feels like C and the null pointers :-(  So this is my next immediate step.  Now I'm still fixing a "tag check failed" :-P, which was one thing a mentioned an hour ago.  What I do like with Ada, is that I can do major refactoring and regularly on the first successful compile have a "bug free" version.  Now with these access variables the story changes a little, I got hit by my first segmentation violation in Ada :-).


> Why MI is needed here? Of which of two stores is Insert?

Just stupid laziness ....

> > My only long term concern is how many people can program in Ada?
> 
> If you do, that is one man more... Any language lives by people who want to
> use it.
> 

Yes, I try to advocate and hence show by the example ... but I'm not planning being a lonesome cowboy ....

Regards,

Serge