Re: MI, was Re: friend classes in ada95

["David Botton" <David@Botton.com>]

I want 1 and if I have 1 on Windows it would be nice if it did 2 so that I
could do COM.

I want 1 because I want 1, I already have COM with GNATCOM, I don't need 2,
but if I get 1 on Windows, it would be nice if it conformed to MSVC++/COM
style VTBLs.

I need to have some one reread my posts before sending for clarity, I still
don't see what is difficult about the above.

COM ain't Corba, COM as stated in my first ever COM announcement a year ago
is over glorified OO RPC.

What I am looking for is direct support of MI Interfaces in Ada, if I don't
get 2 then who cares.

David Botton


tmoran@bix.com wrote in message ...
>> What I am looking to do is introduce interface MI in to Ada syntax.
>> And if I am already going to implement it, I might as well do it in a
>> way that would make it easier to write a COM object in raw Ada.
>
>  I'm confused.  It seems you 1) want MI Interfaces; 2) want them in a
>binary compatible way (at least on Windows) with COM; 3) but
>"Inheritance and reusability are terms with specific meanins for the
>developer of object-oriented code.  These terms refer to the capability
>of deriving your own classes from the base classes, replacing methods
>with customized versions, and adding methods of your own.  None of this
>is available with respect to COM objects."  Visual C++ 5 Unleashed, p 510.