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: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue? Date: 1997/09/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269729729 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: spark23.ecf Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Jon S Anthony wrote: >> >> >Again - get it right. Abstract classes are analogous to abstract >> >types in Ada, NOT packages. >> >> I've said this before: I'm not going for an analogy here. >> My statement stands: deferred classes can do the same thing >> as interface files, and are more powerful, and are simpler >> because they unify nicely with existing OOP practices. > >The point is, abstract types in Ada can do the same as deferred >classes. However, they are somewhat more "flexible" as you can >combine them in various ways within and across module boundaries. Great. So what do you need these separate interface files for? -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca