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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8591be732d0fce98
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ada OOP alternatives?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <462e0cf4-1d53-4918-b30b-dd3d8df90f1b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wcctzeq7khi.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <487d9636$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <6e5uq2F5g7n6U2@mid.individual.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:03:18 +0200
Message-ID: <15s1c1d1cq3hp$.ttyh6yjtsdz$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Jul 2008 15:03:18 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7ddddd29.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=XEMK36hJjWZV0Pe9PRnbJ\ic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQ<`=YMgDjhgRUS@L@@2jVg^[6LHn;2LCV^7enW;^6ZC`TIXm65S@:3>_hAKLY]f1W<X
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1174
Date: 2008-07-16T15:03:18+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:54:52 +0200, Alex R. Mosteo wrote:

> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> Meyer has collected a question about Ada's type syntax which
>> is, Why hasn't Ada used the same syntax for the pair (type,
>> operations) which is does use for (protected type, operations)?
>
> I guess this is one of the first things that ring "strange" to a newbie
> learning the language. I sure noticed it.
> 
> The need to expose the privates of a public protected type is also a bit
> disturbing; I guess there are good compiler design reasons so it couldn't be
> done somehow differently.

I don't think so. Probably one simply copied the design of task types,
carrying the error of binding operations to single type with it.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de