Re: Multiple interface inheritance workaround in Ada 95 / Ada 0x to satisfy a Java language advocate?

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
> Hyman Rosen may be particualrly expert in pointing out what MI in C++
> boasts over Ada.

Be that as it may, I would like to point out that a lot of the articles
about MI have the tone of "you don't need it, and if you think you do
need it, here's how to program a simulation of it". That's not really
the point, any more than the possibility of maintaining your own tables
of function pointers removes the necessity of implementing dispatching
in the programming language. The question is whether having MI would
allow the expression of certain programming solutions to be easier and
clearer, and without unduly burdening code which doesn't use it. A lot
of that may depend on other aspects of the language, which can interact
sysnergisticly or destrcutively with MI. For C++, I believe MI is
overwhelmingly positive. I don't know what the answer would be for Ada.