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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,8591be732d0fce98 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "(see below)" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada OOP alternatives? Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:43:51 +0100 Message-ID: References: <462e0cf4-1d53-4918-b30b-dd3d8df90f1b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <487d9636$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <6e5uq2F5g7n6U2@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net zRfe25vNPCzm5+lQ6Gxscg4BVmhC4xli6018xWZtNeK5CaUNxa Cancel-Lock: sha1:y9FTwcUtx+6aUXSXeFDJ5DlaO9g= User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.11.0.080522 Thread-Topic: Ada OOP alternatives? Thread-Index: Acjnpi5zesEHdHyZgEmDAqSz6FUxiQ== Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1184 Date: 2008-07-17T01:43:51+01:00 List-Id: On 17/07/2008 01:05, in article wcc3am9gytt.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com, "Robert A Duff" wrote: > "(see below)" writes: > >> IIRC, in LIS Ichbiah went for a 3-component module, with interface (spec), >> representation (private) and implementation (body) files. > > Interesting. So he knew about the idea, and/or invented it, > but neglected to put it in Ada! > >> I always wondered why Ada departed from that. > > Strange. Seems obviously superior to the Ada way of doing > private parts. > > I'd still rather eliminate private parts altogether. How would you do that while allowing ADT clients to access objects directly (i.e. not via a pointer a la Java)? -- Bill Findlay chez blueyonder.co.uk