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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7251fa99aab97e06
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-19 10:35:23 PST
Path: 
 sparky!uunet!gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.aero.org!jordan
From: jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: In favor of tagged types (was Classes versus tagged types was
 Ichibah flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X)
Date: 19 Mar 1993 18:13:12 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Message-ID: <1od2foINN1aa@news.aero.org>
References: <1993Mar12.225943.3648@nosc.mil> <1993Mar16.173520.23858@evb.com>
 <1993Mar18.172630@lglsun.epfl.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: daystrom.aero.org
Date: 1993-03-19T18:13:12+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I've been refraining from making the following simple suggestion
primarily because I'm not completely familiar with the proposed
OO extensions for Ada9X and did not want to expose my ignorance
(it won't be the first time). But here goes anyway:

If 'tagged types' are identified as such because they are now
extensible and can have class-wide operations associated with them,
why not replace 'tagged' with 'extensible'?  So what if it's harder to
spell. This seem more straightforward, enhances understanding
(would have mine anyway), removes the ugliness otherwise associated 
with the term 'tagged'.

If this has been suggested before, sorry to waste everyone's time.

--Larry