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: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue? Date: 1997/09/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269910278 Distribution: world References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) writes: > I stand corrected. Thankyou. You're welcome. > One other thing: Does each Ada spec for a package have to be > in a separate file No. > , or can they be together? Yes. > >> It has been pointed out that abstract (ie. deferred) classes can > >> do the same thing with greater flexibility. > > > >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. /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