Re: Inherited Methods and such

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov writes:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:34:13 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>
>> Dmitry A. Kazakov writes:
>>>> On 17 Wrz, 23:07, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> No, I meant C++ does not have a notation for Ada's concept of a class.
>>>
>>> Neither Ada has (I mean a "notation of concept" (:-)). But T& is
>>> close to T'Class, and IMO the concept of a class as a set of types
>>> [obtained upon inheritance] and a type to represent that set is same
>>> in both languages.  Ada separates the set and its representative,
>>> C++ does not.
>> 
>> I'm not following you.  Do you mean to say that T'Class is not a
>> notation for Ada's concept of a class?
>
> Yes. IMO, concepts do not have notations, maybe in category theory, but not
> in a programming language [*]. In Ada T'Class *denotes* a concrete type. It
> does not denote the concepts of type, of class, of computing, of late
> binding etc.
>
> In a concrete program T'Class may express a concept in the application
> domain space. The latter an OOA theologian would call "class." (Did you
> mean this?) They argue that there exists some inherent objective relation
> between dogs (canis lupus familiaris), the word "dog," and Dog'Class. That
> IMO is beyond the language Ada, and is a purely religious concept. (Sorry
> for a pun (:-))

Call me religious all you want.  I thing your reasoning is wrong.  In
human languages there are words to denote concepts, and I think
T'Class denotes the concept of "the tagged type T or any type derived
therefrom", i.e. the Ada concept of a class.  T'Class is not a
specific type, it is a class-wide type.

So, I disagree with your earlier statement too.

But I'm not going to go into a theological argument with anyone.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.