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: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: Multiple Type Interfaces Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212860593 references: <32EA52FA.1CF9@jmpstart.com> <6PbObMf-3RB@herold.franken.de> <32EE352A.167EB0E7@cis.ohio-state.edu> organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <32EE352A.167EB0E7@cis.ohio-state.edu>, Dave Gibson wrote: >Clearly packages exporting multiple tagged types would not fit the >common OO model in which the concepts of "class" and program type are >tightly coupled. Nevertheless, why not define a language so components >can export multiple types which may be extended in other related >"derived" components? Was this ever considered? Was it just not >considered the OO way by Ada95 language designers? Perhaps it would be >extremely complicated to implement with little perceived gain. I'd >appreciate any comments on this topic. I've pondered this idea a little bit, since Ada 95 was designed. It sounds like it might be a good idea, but might also introduce a lot of complexity. I didn't really think it all through, though. I don't know if Tucker ever thought about it this way, before I joined the Ada 9X project. - Bob