Re: Ada202X: Easy to use "UML private"-like components

[Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com>]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 01:57:17 +0300, Niklas Holsti
<niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> declaimed the following:

>
>Maybe my post was unclear: I tried to contradict Bob Duff's recollection
>that an opaque type in Modula-2 is more like an Ada private type than
>like an "stt access type". I think that a Modula-2 opaque type is very
>similar to an "stt access type". Do you agree with me?

	Having just refetched a few days of the thread to find out what "stt
access type" means, I can not comment on your assertion.

	My first exposure with Ada, proper, was in January of 1981 when
Lockheed sent a cadre to a class -- a point in time when the NYU Ada/Ed
Translator was the only thing almost available, and just three weeks after
Mil-Std 1815 was announced (I'd had earlier exposure to the SIGPlan Notices
publication of the proposed Ada Language RM and Rationale, and a thin blue
book introducing the language). Only to end up in an assignment that used
FORTRAN-77... My next chance at Ada was 15 years later, when I encountered
AdaGIDE and GNAT. So any contentious features in Ada-83 passed me by
totally. It was nearly another 10 years before I actually got to use Ada at
work (and that required getting laid-off, rehired for some VC++ [on a W98
laptop!], and a few bouts of Python while trying to avoid another lay-off).

	So whatever these "stt access types" are, they are not something I've
encountered in my use of Python -- they sound a lot like a programming
convention for subverting what the compiler was designed to handle.
Modula-2's opaque exports, OTOH, are the compiler's requirement for
handling data abstraction -- not something a programmer just uses in lieu
of some other paradigm.

-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/