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,f4f6a5b783e1150c,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: MI for Ada
Date: 1999/02/11
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9902111400440.7727-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 443396611
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 918773664 16671 bpr@206.184.139.136
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hi,
	I've been thinking lately about how to go about adding Java style 
interfaces or GNU C++ signatures to Ada. While syntax is probably the
easiest part of such an addition, I thought I'd pose the topic here to
others who've undoubtedly thought longer on this topic than I have. Does 
anyone have strong opinions on this topic (syntax), like whether new
keywords should be added or not? 

	I find the restricted MI of Java and GNU C++ signatures appealing.
Ada already has forms of MI of implementation, so such an addition would 
make Ada OOP significantly nicer, without making it much more complex. 
Comments?

-- Brian