Re: Package Instances???

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Matthew Heaney wrote:
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote
> 
>>Given that C++ classes can have arbitrary
>>things defined in them (types, static functions, constants, etc.)
>>considering them as an analogue of Ada packages is not wrong.
> 
> But it is wrong if your purpose is to implement a type, so that you can
> declare objects, which you can pass to subprograms, etc.  The fact that in
> C++ you can declare things inside the class is irrelevent.

But my purpose isn't to implement a type, it's to find a C++ analogue
for Ada packages. C++ namespaces are useless for anything except what
the name implies, namely establishing a namespace.