From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:37:50 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.ed
u!cis.ohio-state.edu!elephant.cis.ohio-state.edu!weide@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Br
uce Weide)
Subject: Re: OOD, Ada, and Inheritance
Message-ID: <1992Nov17.203750.11396@cis.ohio-state.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1992Nov16.150904.6822@ruby.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Adolfo.Socorro@prg.oxford.ac.uk (Adolfo Socorro) writes (quoting me):

>>...  In fact, it seems Ada could be extended with (direct
>>language support for) multiple implementations, e.g., by permitting
>>separate naming of package specs and bodies and a way of binding them
>>together at instantiation time.  See a paper by M. Sitaraman in Proc.
>>ICCL, Apr 1992, for some ideas on how this could be done.  
>
>This work is much more older, dating back to the specification language Clear
>and more recently to the language LIL. See
>
>  @ARTICLE{Goguen:computer86,
>    AUTHOR  = "Goguen, Joseph",
>    TITLE   = "Reusing and Interconnecting Software Components",
>    JOURNAL = "Computer",
>    MONTH   = "February",
>    YEAR    = 1986,
>    VOLUME  = 19,
>    NUMBER  = 2,
>    PAGES   = "16-28"}
>

Just to clarify, I wasn't contending that the paper I mentioned
contains the first reference to multiple implementations!  Of course
this is not a new idea.  What that paper contains, however, is a
specific proposal for how to include support for multiple
implementations in Ada, with fairly minor changes.
    -Bruce