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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8591be732d0fce98
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada OOP alternatives?
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:54:52 +0200
Message-ID: <6e5uq2F5g7n6U2@mid.individual.net>
References: 
 <462e0cf4-1d53-4918-b30b-dd3d8df90f1b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wcctzeq7khi.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <487d9636$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: individual.net tteBmekx2WH/0j1+S1OANgmavDF1h0LdCXrGy40sDH5S0wtTc=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o6VUNwgzEX82S6RrfpBGmSiLnRc=
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1173
Date: 2008-07-16T11:54:52+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Meyer has collected a question about Ada's type syntax which
> is, Why hasn't Ada used the same syntax for the pair (type,
> operations) which is does use for (protected type, operations)?

I guess this is one of the first things that ring "strange" to a newbie
learning the language. I sure noticed it.

The need to expose the privates of a public protected type is also a bit
disturbing; I guess there are good compiler design reasons so it couldn't be
done somehow differently.