Re: Idiom for a class and an object in Ada

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

In my particular example, I have outlawed the use of access types. It 
doesn't matter why. You can get a perfectly good static allocation of 
exactly what is needed with the plain vanilla object declaration ala:

Some_Object : Class_Package.Tagged_Record_Type ;

I don't find a problem with that. It is simple and enables me to get 
exactly what I need from the compiler, linker and other tools down the 
chain. The question is "Where do you put it?"

Dimitri seems to like a child package under the "class" package. I've 
used that in the past. It works fine, but does proliferate packages. 
There might be some variations on that (one "object" per child package 
versus all "objects" in one child package?) There are other spots to 
declare such entities and I'm wondering what is preferred by most Ada 
people who actually declare some static (library level) 'objects'?

MDC

Matthew Heaney wrote:

> 
> The intended Ada95 mechanism for controlling instance creation is to
> declare the type as limited and indefinite, and for the package to
> provide a factory function to create instances of the type.

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat"
         -- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987
======================================================================