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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8b8748382fcfacc1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: friend classes in ada95
Date: 2000/04/17
Message-ID: <8df6fb$mm3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 612232195
References: <38F6B617.34E216A7@emw.ericsson.se> <38F887AE.8CDA24E0@acm.org>
 <8dc8oi$kda$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <mvnK4.4943$I75.3573293@news-east.usenetserver.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Apr 17 14:18:33 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-04-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <mvnK4.4943$I75.3573293@news-east.usenetserver.com>,
  "David Botton" <David@Botton.com> wrote:

> class type X is new Y with
>     interface
>         A, B
>     record
>         new_var : abc;
>     end record;

I can't even guess what the intention is here I must admit,
this seems completely obscure to me.


> I would have a syntax for OO that was not embarassing to talk
> about in public and would stop turning purple when confronted
> by OO people about MI since I have at least interface
> inheritance _directly_ suported by the
> language.

I find your proposal very confusing, and I perfectly understand
interface inheritance. I think you need to properly fill out
your proposal and describe it in RM terms so that we can have
some chance of understanding what you are talking about.

It looks like a real mishmash of ideas to me, but perhaps that's
because it is unclear.

> On Win32 I would implement the interfaces using the same
> "vtbl" style used by MSVC++ and therefore COM.

Well tagged types use this *identical* implementation approach
so I really can't understand the distinction you are trying
to make here.

Just to be clear, Jean's proposal was a simple syntactic
transformation, completely unrelated (I think :-) to David's
sketch here.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.