Re: Multiple interface inheritance workaround in Ada 95 / Ada 0x to satisfy a Java language advocate?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:27:42 -0400, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
wrote:

>Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen may be particualrly expert in pointing out what MI in C++
>> boasts over Ada.
>
>Be that as it may, I would like to point out that a lot of the articles
>about MI have the tone of "you don't need it, and if you think you do
>need it, here's how to program a simulation of it". That's not really
>the point, any more than the possibility of maintaining your own tables
>of function pointers removes the necessity of implementing dispatching
>in the programming language. The question is whether having MI would
>allow the expression of certain programming solutions to be easier and
>clearer, and without unduly burdening code which doesn't use it. A lot
>of that may depend on other aspects of the language, which can interact
>sysnergisticly or destrcutively with MI. For C++, I believe MI is
>overwhelmingly positive. I don't know what the answer would be for Ada.

It is of course cannot depend on a language.

I believe the answer is yes, however Ada community is yet not ready to
accept this fact.

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de