Re: Package Instances???

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

O.K. But please take a moment to recall that I never said that a C++ class
was "just like" an Ada tagged type. I've been stating consistently that you
can't presume that a feature of Language X is going to have an exact
parallel in Language Y. I wouldn't make the claim that a C++ class and an
Ada tagged type are plug compatible. They both have their own semantics that
aren't going to mirror-image each other and attempting to force them to be
the same is a mistake.

What I *am* claiming is that if you want to do something similar to a C++
class in Ada, that attempting to do it with a package is going to lead to
disappointing results. Using a package in conjunction with a tagged type is
the correct idiom in Ada for representing a "class" (general concept - not
C++ class).

When comparing C++ and Ada, it really is important to remember that you can
get the same end results from either language, but you can't necessarily get
those results in an identical manner.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3C7676AF.9020404@mail.com...
>
> It is simplistic and wrong to argue that a C++ class is just
> like an Ada tagged type. That just is not how classes are used
> in modern C++. It may appear to be cobbled together because of
> the C heritage, and because a lot of the idioms were discovered
> late in the game, but the non-tagged-type usages are at least
> as important and useful as the OO stuff.
>