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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271751007 Distribution: world References: Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) writes: > Ok. I'll go for that, because my argument all along has been that > abstract superclasses can do as much as *and more than* Ada specs. > So let's consider just the export aspects of an abstract class. Is > there anything that they can't do which Ada specs can do? Yes, _of course_ there is. An Ada spec. can bundle and export _many_ different interfaces. These can be abstract and/or concrete. You're earlier remark about not saying anything more on this until you've read up on the relevant Ada bits seems really apropos... /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari