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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7dbba1cd16d32bb8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: markus034@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada OOP syntax
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <2fde321e-7906-4050-a8c1-26069a8d0d65@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
References: <_9adnb1KYvIrW87VnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>
	<g313nr$uih$1@online.de> <iMWdnRwS1e1p8sXVnZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.217.114.182
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1213775303 8791 127.0.0.1 (18 Jun 2008 07:48:23
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:48:23 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.217.114.182;
	posting-account=ofs1egoAAADOD65QCIoo3CTBjzf9irXS
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.14)
	Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:754
Date: 2008-06-18T00:48:22-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jun 17, 7:14 pm, "Steve" <nospam_steve...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Oliver Kellogg" <okell...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
>
> news:g313nr$uih$1@online.de...
>
> > Steve wrote:
>
> >> For a programming language that has so much right, Ada sure has oop
> >> syntax
> >> wrong.  What's more is the syntax is inconsistant with a lot of things
> >> that Ada got right and other languages didn't.
>
> > Do you knowhttp://mats.weber.org/thesis/Ada-Extensions.pdf?
>
> > Not sure if it's spot on for you but well worth the read, IMHO.
>
> I haven't read the entire document yet, but plan to.  It looks very
> interesting indeed.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
>
> > --Oliver

Especially, package types and package subtypes are very interesting.
That syntax seems to be clearer than tagged types. I don't understand
why it was rejected?