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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,248f80acc3d5ccb3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Andy <andy@nospam.com.tj>
Subject: Re: Objects properties -  Ada design issues question
Date: 2000/02/06
Message-ID: <389CEEF8.69E7@nospam.com.tj>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 582127439
Cache-Post-Path: news.ozonline.com.au!unknown@melb-pool-170.ozonline.com.au
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <s9ljhv6jdh127@corp.supernews.com>
 <877lgklryd.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> <s9mdep9idh30@corp.supernews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@connect.com.au
X-Trace: perki.connect.com.au 949805260 26417 203.4.248.42 (6 Feb 2000
 02:47:40 GMT)
Organization: Australia On Line Pty Ltd
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: andy@nospam.com.tj
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Feb 2000 02:47:40 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-02-06T02:47:40+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vladimir Olensky wrote:
> 
> Problem arises ( as I described in previous message)  when we want
> to define common interface to the set of objects ("Black Boxes") derived
> from some root class and we do not know in advance properties  for
> particular derived  object  that should be revealed to the client. In
> addition that properties could be very  different for different derived  
> classes.
> 
> Problem with standard Get  and Set approach is that you need to extend
> interface for each derived type and this breaks our intention to have
> common interface with some limited set of operations  to each "Black Box"
> component.
> 
> So it would be nice to have common interface to different properties
> (that are not known in advance) of different  kind of objects.
> So here use of  ":=" as a standard Get Set operator for any property
> is very useful. We just define in the private part of the implementation
> what this operator does for each particular property without disturbing
> public interface.
> 
But the fact that you would like declare these as properties in a child
class changes the 'common interface'. If a child class has a new
property 
(as can be done in Delphi) or defines additional Get/Set operations as
is
done in Ada 95 - what's the difference. You cannot access these via the 
common interface defined for the root class.

Or am I missing something?

As do your orginal question. One models Delphi properties with Get and
Set operations. Although syntacically different, they provide
essentially
the same operation.

___________________________________________

   Andy Starritt
___________________________________________