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: 6 Apr 93 16:36:30 GMT From: asuvax!ennews!enuxhb.eas.asu.edu!koehnema@gatech.edu (Harry Koehnemann) Subject: Re: Classes vs Tagged Types - Terminology Message-ID: <1993Apr6.163630.23354@ennews.eas.asu.edu> List-Id: In article <1993Apr5.155419.8598@evb.com> jgg@evb.com (John Goodsen) writes: >In <1993Mar25.155650.16244@inmet.camb.inmet.com> >stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) writes: > >>In Ada 9X, it is only class-wide types (named "T'Class") that provide >>subclass matching. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Didn't you mean "tagged types" :-) > >Can we take this as an indicator that you are about ready to >abondon the "tagged type" terminology and adopt the more >appropriate "class type" terminology? It seems that even >members of the 9X project are shying away from using "tagged >type" these days, so why don't just finish the scenario and >adopt the "class type" syntax and terminology ... The term "class-wide" appears to apply to the usage of a type classification (when declaring a parameter type for a subprogram specification), while your favorite term "tagged type" is used during the definition of the classification . i.e. "tagged" isn't going away. IMO, it would be a large mistake to refer to Ada's tagged types as classes. I understand your desire to use terms common in the OO world, but great confusion lies ahead for those OO people that have programmed using a class construct. Classes and type extensions are by no means the same construct and it is appropriate to make their names distinct - "tagged"/"extended"/???, but not "class". -- Harry Koehnemann Arizona State University koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu Computer Science Department