Re: MI for Ada

[Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com>]

Brian Rogoff wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>         I've been thinking lately about how to go about adding Java style
> interfaces or GNU C++ signatures to Ada. While syntax is probably the
> easiest part of such an addition, I thought I'd pose the topic here to
> others who've undoubtedly thought longer on this topic than I have. Does
> anyone have strong opinions on this topic (syntax), like whether new
> keywords should be added or not?

It is probably too soon to tell.  I suggest you design the
semantics of the feature.  It may be that there are keywords
that work already.  Norm Cohen is famous for coming up with
great combinations of existing keywords, if you need help.
But don't be afraid of adding new keywords if necessary.

>         I find the restricted MI of Java and GNU C++ signatures appealing.
> Ada already has forms of MI of implementation, so such an addition would
> make Ada OOP significantly nicer, without making it much more complex.
> Comments?

I agree that multiple inheritance of *interface* only is a
more pleasing approach than the full-blown MI of implementation
(in two different ways!) found in C++.

Future revisions to Ada will almost certainly be based on
experimental results, rather than the pure thought experiments
we were forced to use last time.  So by all means, experiment!

> 
> -- Brian

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@averstar.com   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions  (www.averstar.com/tools)
AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.)   Burlington, MA  USA