Re: friend classes in ada95 (long)

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On 23 Apr 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> writes:
> > > Signatures are being removed from the latest version of GNU C++.
> > > There is no need to "graft interface MI" into C++ because C++
> > > fully supports interface MI as it stands.
> > 
> > I disagree with your assertion. GNU C++ signatures allowed subtyping
> > *independent* of class hierarchy, and even allowed the extraction of 
> > a signature from an existing class using a "sigof" operator, something 
> > even Java doesn't have.
> 
> Which assertion? Signatures are definitely being removed from GNU C++.
> This has been proclaimed on the official mailing lists by official
> maintainers. 

Obviously not that one. 

> As to the other, the message to which I responded was talking
> about Java, so I meant that C++ has interface MI which is the equal of
> Java (nearly, with an exception I've posted before). 

The assertion that C++ fully suports MI of interface. Since you were 
responding to my message about GNU C++ signatures, I foolishly assumed 
that you were talking about GNU C++ signatures, not Java. Silly me!

> It certainly needs no "grafting".

It seems that I ruffled your feathers by using that word in the context of 
your favorite language. Sorry. I actually liked the signature extension of 
C++. I'd love to see such a feature grafted onto Ada.

-- Brian