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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,8ff80a74f45b5cd3 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8ff80a74f45b5cd3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Visibility and access to "public" attributes Date: 1997/09/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269510149 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au References: Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50 Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I wrote: :Mike Card wrote: :I accept this more accurately emulates the Eiffel functionality, and.. : ::.. there is no restriction in Ada that prevents an access function ::from having the same name as a class' (tagged type's) attribute. : :True. What remains, of course, is the fact that the Eiffel mechanism is simpler and more direct - objectively-speaking, that is. :) Why objectively? Because in Eiffel, the attribute is made available in one step and in Ada, two steps. Less steps implies directness which, in turn, implies simplicity, so we can conclude that the Eiffel mechanism is both more direct and simpler. It seems that the meaning of the word "subjective" is, shall we say, subjective. To many, it has the usual meaning of "depending on individual perception". To some, it means: "A quality which I can ascribe to a statement made by an opponent which I know to be valid but believe my opponent will find difficult, if not impossible, to justify by irrefutable argument." Don. (Reverse to reply) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison au.com.csa.syd@donh