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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8ddc2f0fbdfbed75
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!t16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: design changes per Ada 2005/12?
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <7944976c-0f88-4b0d-921f-e6afac0be677@t16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
References: <ioqd7m$vtt$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <49b85caa-700c-44c8-8a11-2f512083aca5@r6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.230.151.194
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1303435406 12912 127.0.0.1 (22 Apr 2011 01:23:26
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:23:26 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: t16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.230.151.194;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
 rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19944
Date: 2011-04-21T18:23:25-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Apr 21, 8:10=A0pm, Lucretia <Lucretia9...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 12:05=A0am, tmo...@acm.org wrote:
>
> > Randy,
> > A lot of Claw used/tested new Ada 95 features. =A0What would you *desig=
n*
> > differently with Ada 2005 or 2012? =A0(Not syntactic sugar).
>
> > Similar question to other folks.
>
> Interfaces if the FSF GNAT doesn't produce an ICE.
>
> Luke.
>
> P.S: The containers should've used interfaces!

Indeed they should have.
It really is too bad that they chose to emulate Java-style interfaces
rather than
Delphi-style interfaces; with Delphi's properties you can have a
'field' of an
object which can be calculated (a procedure or function) or a renaming
of an
internal field, for both reading and writing to the property. Read-
only and
write-only properties are also do-able.