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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 12 Apr 93 15:23:05 GMT
From: seas.gwu.edu!mfeldman@uunet.uu.net  (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Classes vs types; what's the difference?
Message-ID: <1993Apr12.152305.10571@seas.gwu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993Apr12.150148.9736@evb.com> jgg@evb.com (John Goodsen) writes:
>
>I still maintain that the "better marketing" argument for using
>"class types" instead of "tagged types" in Ada 9X has been to this
>point unchallenged...
>
I think I'm tending to agree with this (how's that for hedging my bets?).
Nothing would change syntactically by substituting "class" for "tagged".
One new reserved word is required in either case; "tagged" is used nowhere
else in the language, and neither is "class" _as a reserved word_.
(T'Class is used as an attribute, but Ada seems to have no problems
overloading an attribute with a reserved word, as 'Range illustrates).

Semantically, "class type" would logically connote "a type that can give
rise to a class, which is precisely what a tagged type is; T'Class in a 
declaration then refers to T and anything in the derivation tree rooted at T, 
so it all seems consistent.

It seems, then, that a simple substitution of the new reserved word CLASS
for the (equally new reserved word) TAGGED would do the trick, and if it 
would help the marketing while hurting nothing else, it seems to me that 
we have a non-problem here.

Have I missed something critical? Other than a certain stubborn commitment 
to the word "tagged", what's wrong with this?

Mike Feldman