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: 103376,56dbd715fa74735a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Mutually dependent private types
Date: 1998/05/29
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980529083534.1132A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 357667523
References: <6k25ra$6j7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <matthew_heaney-ya023680002105982333070001@news.ni.net>
 <3565B105.9BFB4788@ac3i.dseg.ti.com>
 <matthew_heaney-ya023680002205981805440001@news.ni.net>
 <356B226F.EF05E927@ac3i.dseg.ti.com> <m3d8d08yk6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <356C8A02.44354B09@ac3i.dseg.ti.com> <m3g1hvs1u3.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <356E09A1.B493FE89@ac3i.dseg.ti.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: 896457533 11376 bpr  206.184.139.132
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-05-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On Thu, 28 May 1998, John Volan wrote:
> So basically what you're saying is, you think it's
> "good programming" to use inheritance as a way of simulating a forward
> type declaration, even if inheritance collision forces you to break the
> pattern and put a forward type declaration in an unexpected place. 
> Well, that's your opinion, but I have to disagree with it.

Lets explore the idea a little more though. If there were some better
(read: more direct) support for multiple inheritance in Ada, the
inheritance collision argument is weakened, and the workaround can become 
the blessed solution. Since an extension is being proposed anyways,
perhaps the single inheritance restriction should be rethought. 

-- Brian