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: 103376,9ac62ca34a465706
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,9ac62ca34a465706
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: pete@borland.com (Pete Becker)
Subject: Re: on OO differnces between Ada95 and C++
Date: 1996/02/22
Message-ID: <4gi413$qo1@druid.borland.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 140572932
references: <4gbq7q$g08@qualcomm.com> <3129F185.41C6@Rational.COM>
content-type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: Borland International
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++
Date: 1996-02-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3129F185.41C6@Rational.COM>, jDesquilbet@Rational.COM says...
>
>- you may have several different definitions for the same class in the
>same program, as long as they are never compiled together in the same
>compilation unit; example:
>
>#define private public // *** BERK! ***
>#include "...h"        // second definition for the same class
>#undef private

This is not true. A program that attempts to do this violates the one 
definition rule, so it is not a legal C++ program.
	-- Pete