From: Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: Naming convention for classes?
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:13:03 +0100
Date: 2004-02-04T15:13:03+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1554291.pHP9RIN1Dk@linux1.krischik.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: MPG.1a8aa72f52f26da1989691@news.sover.net
Peter C. Chapin wrote:
> In article <ngcqvb.2ln.ln@skymaster>, rosen@adalog.fr says...
>
>> Now, this is not the only possible design pattern. For example, you can
>> have the equivalent of "friends" in C++ by declaring two tagged types in
>> the same package. The previous notation is no more applicable to this
>> pattern.
> Yes, I see that. Coupling two classes by defining them in the same
> package provides some interesting options.
You should also remember that in Ada the concept of "protected" is
implemented by child packages not child classes.
With Regards
Martin
--
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-04 14:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-03 23:52 Naming convention for classes? Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 0:27 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 2:31 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 8:57 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-04 11:52 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 14:02 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2004-02-05 12:18 ` Stuart Palin
2004-02-04 14:13 ` Martin Krischik [this message]
2004-02-04 9:13 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 14:57 ` Georg Bauhaus
2004-02-04 19:01 ` Jeffrey Carter
2004-02-04 8:06 ` tmoran
2004-02-04 11:49 ` Peter C. Chapin
2004-02-04 12:36 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 12:41 ` Preben Randhol
2004-02-04 14:09 ` Martin Krischik
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox