Re: Adding Multiple Inheritance (was: Modernizing Ada)

[eberard@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Edward Berard)]

Ron Guilmette (rfg@ics.uci.edu) writes:
>  sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
> >  It's easy to say "multiple inheritance" but it should be
> >implemented too. And I'm not talking compiler technology here.
> >My issue is the langauge definition. The inheritance mechanism
> >should integrated with existing constructs in Ada. Say that you add
> >classes a new compilation unit to Ada. Easy? Yes, but why then
> >keep packages? OK, make the classes package types, but somehow
[...] ...
> 
> >All this said with the following reservation: I haven't seen
> >any concrete proposal on how an inheritance mechanism in Ada
> >should be look like. [...] ...
> 
> Well... I know that I'm definitely *not* the only one to have started to
> think about how to munge MI into Ada, and I may just be putting my foot
> in my mouth here, but I wonder if anybody here would like to start
> discussing the pros and cons of various schemes for adding MI to Ada.
> 
> The addition of PACKAGE TYPES (kinda like task types, only different)
> seems like a nice way to add the notion of CLASSES without adding another
> keyword.  [...] ...
> [...] ...
> // rfg

For those of you who are interested, there is a small group of
individuals who are working to formally suggest object-oriented
extensions to the Ada language. They held a three-day meeting in the
Boston, Mass. area during September. For more information, contact
Rich Hilliard at MITRE:

  E-mail : rh@mbunix.mitre.org

  Office : The MITRE Corporation
           MS A155
           Bedford, MA 01730

  TELEPHONE : (617) 271-7760

The time for revision suggestions for Ada 9X is almost over. If you
think you have any good ideas, be quick about it.

				-- Ed Berard
				   (301) 353-9652