Re: Question about OO programming in Ada

[James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@att.net>]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in
news:l0BAb.601$kz2.183@nwrdny01.gnilink.net: 

> I don't think you do understand. For one, there is no "overhead"
> whatsoever in using a class for encapsulation. And in C++ a type may
> be the equivalent of tagged or not tagged, as you choose.

Do you mean to say there is an equivalent of an un-tagged type for
C++ classes? Is this also equivalent to a Java "final" class?

How would you create a C++ equivalent of a ranged integer type that
is also not the equivalent of an Ada tagged type?

Is this done using templates? Templates do incur an overhead. The
overhead is incurred at compile time rather than at run time, but
there is still an overhead.

While speaking of C++ templates, I am amazed at the power and limitations
of C++ templates. The language for C++ templates appears to me to be
an additional syntax beyond the C++ run time syntax. I was surprised to
learn that C++ does not provide for floating point template parameters.
This makes it impossible to provide a template for a ranged real type
in C++.

Jim Rogers