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,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Real OO Date: 1996/05/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 153987179 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <68P8IzIk3RB@herold.franken.de> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1996-05-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: > :Well, Eiffel doesn't allow you to freeze parameter classes, so we have > :a point where Ada allows a bit more freedom. > > Disagree. The fact that Eiffel allows you to redefine them to conformant > types in descendants indicates greater freedom not less. There is no need to > preclude redefinition and it is more flexible to be able to. For good or ill, you can redefine classwide operations to your hearts content. And you can do it pretty much wherever and however you want - even as a local/nested operation of another subprogram (of any sort). I see no "greater" freedom in the Eiffel model at all. If anything it is more restrictive on several counts. What are you thinking of when you make the claim that it has "greater freedom"? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com