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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5394d9ca5f955366
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: John Robinson <john@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: pointers & OOP
Date: 1999/05/10
Message-ID: <CFXIZOA$6wN3EwM8@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 476234596
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk:194.222.150.244
References: <m3k8uszln5.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <$DL10CAsSgL3Iwj3@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk> <7gn7gr$fr5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <MVsZ8DAT0AM3EwF3@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk> <7gq27t$vnd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <kfgz+IAjeKM3EwgM@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk>
 <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905062007340.27089-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 926355271 nnrp-10:28063 NO-IDENT
 jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk:194.222.150.244
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 1999-05-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905062007340.27089-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
, Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> writes
>On Wed, 5 May 1999, John Robinson wrote:
>
>> In article <7gq27t$vnd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-
>> dejanews.com> writes
>> >In article <MVsZ8DAT0AM3EwF3@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk>,
>> >  John Robinson <john@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hence, a mapping from UML to Ada 95 should always map a single UML class
>> >> box onto a package containing a single tagged type.  Although the
>> >> language allows multiple tagged types to be declared in a single package
>> >> it makes no sense whatsoever to do so.
>
>OK, you agree with Bertrand Meyer that the class is the unit of modularity 
>I happen to think otherwise. 

I am happy to agree with Meyer.  But we all have opinions and yours are
as valid as mine.  I only wish everyone would approach life that way.

<snip>
>
>> The use (in general) of one "major" type per package goes back to my
>
>Well, now its become one "major" type per package. This is a lot weaker
>than your original claim. I might even agree with this one, 

Yes - if I have a fault it is getting suckered into replying quickly and
not reviewing the words before sending (I actually thought I used the
word "major" or "primary" or similar in the original posting - but I
probably didn't).  In any case, any implementation or secondary types I
use are not (in general) tagged types.

 ... and maybe I have more than one fault!
-- 
John Robinson
John Robinson & Associates
www.jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk