From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: signatures
Date: 1999/08/01
Date: 1999-08-01T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908011155480.11598-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7o1kbb$2ku$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net
Well, they force your types to be tagged, and to inherit from the abstract
tagged type on which your subprograms operate; this is something generic
signature packages don't do unless you want them to.
If I had my druthers, the next version of Ada would have something like
Java interfaces, GNU C++ signatures, or Sather types/abstract-classes, in
addition to the module signatures Ada has now. This introduces even more
structural subtyping into Ada, but who said life was simple? :-)
-- Brian
On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, James S. Rogers wrote:
> While on the subject of signatures, do not overlook abstract subprograms.
> Abstract subprograms strictly enforce a signature without enforcing any
> specific impelementation.
>
> Jim Rogers
> Colorado Springs, Colorado
>
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-08-01 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-07-29 0:00 signatures Ehud Lamm
1999-07-29 0:00 ` signatures Brian Rogoff
1999-08-01 0:00 ` signatures Ehud Lamm
1999-08-01 0:00 ` signatures James S. Rogers
1999-08-01 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1988-12-07 16:36 signatures Stephe Leake
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox