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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fa2cc518ef3b992c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ehud Lamm Subject: Re: tagged types extensions - language design question Date: 2000/02/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 580236293 References: <3895EC61.9B2157A8@rational.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.huji.ac.il X-Trace: news.huji.ac.il 949388274 26551 132.64.178.45 (1 Feb 2000 06:57:54 GMT) Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Ehud Lamm NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Feb 2000 06:57:54 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-01T06:57:54+00:00 List-Id: Perhaps another way of viewing this issue (following the discussion from Mark) is to ask who controls the private/public (i.e., data hiding) distinction. In Ada this is done on the package level, where as the example with private/public components ties the distinction to the type - as in C++ classes. In many cases the Ada approach is easier to understand, and enhances readability. But there can be other cases (perhaps like the one that prompted this discussion) that are more natural to express using the other approach. I am not sure that I can prove which is the better approach, but I agree that it seems like a core design principle of the language. Ehud Lamm mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ehudlamm <== My home on the web Check it out and subscribe to the E-List- for interesting essays and more!