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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f4d5ed8a41b9fc83
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: Design of the Ada95 object system
Date: 1997/11/28
Message-ID: <347EEE5C.565D8C65@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 293421739
References: <880451634.2136@dejanews.com>
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
To: Oliver.Kellogg@vs.dasa.de
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-11-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Oliver.Kellogg@vs.dasa.de wrote:

I agree with you. I would also have preferred package types for the Ada 95 OO
stuff. But there has already been much discussion on that subject in c.l.a.

> If anyone can refer me to further reading explaining the choice of
> object mechanism in Ada95, that'd be great. I've already consulted
> the Ada95 Rationale and found some comparisons with other languages
> at the end of chapter 4, but not a discussion of alternatives
> considered for the Ada95 object system during language design.

I did my PhD thesis on exactly that subject. It's on the Web at 
<http://lglwww.epfl.ch/Team/MW/Ada-Extensions/Ada-Extensions.html>.

You can also retrieve past discussions on the subject with dejanews.