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: 103376,8b8748382fcfacc1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: friend classes in ada95 (long) Date: 2000/04/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 614662854 References: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 956507245 209 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 23 Apr 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote: > Brian Rogoff 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