From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.139.70 with SMTP id qw6mr2114217pab.47.1449611731653; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 13:55:31 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.104.163 with SMTP id gf3mr35419obb.5.1449611731613; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 13:55:31 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!mv3no13549412igc.0!news-out.google.com!f6ni17280igq.0!nntp.google.com!mv3no13549411igc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 13:55:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=109.88.54.35; posting-account=6m7axgkAAADBKh082FfZLdYsJ24CXYi5 NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.88.54.35 References: <8bc7fd76-f00a-4eea-9715-470af028fc84@googlegroups.com> <1krm4xun4e4ny.jmh9kvf6s0a9.dlg@40tude.net> <12dc7aea-933d-4271-95bd-10df808917e4@googlegroups.com> <5hfb2q9imjfu.zs3xp9gxw0d3.dlg@40tude.net> <5788b259-8886-4ee2-8c3d-7799abfd840e@googlegroups.com> <14acd8b0-a5e9-40fd-b7cc-d319f914d507@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <112596d0-d4ee-46e9-a02d-8de837aff352@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: I'm facing an issue with: call to abstract procedure must be dispatching From: Serge Robyns Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 21:55:31 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28720 Date: 2015-12-08T13:55:31-08:00 List-Id: 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: >=20 > If you really need mix-in then better do it like this: >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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 nex= t 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 li= ttle, 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? >=20 > If you do, that is one man more... Any language lives by people who want = to > use it. >=20 Yes, I try to advocate and hence show by the example ... but I'm not planni= ng being a lonesome cowboy .... Regards, Serge