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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: smize@news.imagin.net (Samuel Mize)
Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract)
Date: 1997/09/06
Message-ID: <5us424$3fkl$1@prime.imagin.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 270293966
References: <5uq95j$hgg$2@news2.digex.net>
Organization: ImagiNet Communications Ltd, Arlington, Texas
Reply-To: smize@imagin.net (Samuel Mize)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>W. Wesley Groleau x4923 (wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com) wrote:
>: 
>: ... I was responding
>: to those who want to deny that a good feature language X is not
>: an advantage because language Y can accomplish the same thing by
>: an unintended use of features it DOES have.  Those are the folks 
>: that first brought up the idea.
>: 
>: It happens on the Ada side, too.  "Multiple inheritance is not
>: important because we can simulate it this way."  What the Ada advocate
>: should say is one of (1) "We think MI is bad because"  OR (2) "We
>: looked at the _goal_ of multiple inheritance and decided that _goal_
>: could be better acheived by..." OR (3) "OK, we'll let you have that 
>: as an advantage of your language."

Note that (2) is what the Ada Rationale says, in detail.  I agree, we
should be careful to emulate it.

Sam Mize

-- 
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net -- Team Ada
(personal net account)