Re: tagged types extensions - language design question

[Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>]

Matthew Heaney wrote:

> In article <3891B5B3.7430F96B@earthlink.net> , Charles Hixson
> <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>
> >> But you'd have the "additional package" in other OOP languages too.  In
> >> another language you'd have to declare two "classes," which means two
> >> modules.  Same as Ada.  (Although I think you can nest classes in C++,
> >> right?)
> >>
> >
> > My understanding of Eiffel (not the greatest!) is that it would handle THIS
> > PROBLEM gracefully in one step.  My problem with it is the lack of control
> > over direct (random access) I/O.
>
> I don't understand why everything has to be "done in one step."  In
> Ada95, you have to declare an intermediate (abstract) type, in order to
> declare some attributes as public.  It's really not that big a deal.
>

I can't speak for him (Vladimir Olensky) but my reason is so that I need to keep
track of fewer names.  I frequently pick up projects for short periods of time,
and then put them down for several months before the next time that I pick them
up.  If I have to keep track of fewer names then I find it easier to reposition
myself in the project.  Of course, if anything was ever really completed, then
the private sections would never need to be thought about again.  This, however,
doesn't seem to map well into my perceived reality.