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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue? Date: 1997/09/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271461034 References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net> <5utag9$o6s@newshub.atmnet.net> <5v1gua$fkk@newshub.atmnet.net> <5v2k2n$1cfu$2@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> <5v4095$h62@newshub.atmnet.net> Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 10 Sep 1997, Matt Kennel (Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply) wrote: > :No, that's just basically wrong. Abstract classes are like abstract > :types in Ada, not specs. > > Why? Aren't Eiffel classes like abstract types in Ada, *and* specs? What > is the problem? > > The only distinction I see is that Ada requires a separate spec for > each concrete class, False. I can stick as many concrete or abstract classes into a spec as I want. And if I desired, I could define classes inside a body and they would be invisible outside of it, and have no spec (I haven't desired that yet). Why is it that so many people feel compelled to guess about how Ada works, when the Rationale, Reference Manual, Annotated Reference Manual and numerous tutorials are all *freely* available? -- Brian