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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b3c1a8f7db90f9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.k-dsl.de!newsfeed-fusi2.netcologne.de!newsreader2.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-hp2.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Interfaces and abstract tagged types
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <MrNoSpam-2E36C8.18013105102008@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
  <1w8x4i0peinwk$.16cenhvch5kv5.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc63o623bj.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <mshb6m8vcpzn$.17hq7rvpyycxb.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c83a1b3b-298f-4aa3-9974-aa7b8153dc15@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:29:34 +0200
Message-ID: <d8k5v0eh9lhg.1ip39ui01oj9h.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Oct 2008 10:29:35 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 04f738d2.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=0RkXe;8T61`J00P1S40fZg4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk^J12E_Cm87n[6LHn;2LCVn7enW;^6ZC`dIXm65S@:3>oCZ]Sb2ZKg3m
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2407
Date: 2008-10-16T10:29:35+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Ivan Levashew wrote:

>>>> (Interfaces was a huge mistake)
>>
>>> Interesting. �Why do you say so?
>>
>> Because there already existed abstract types for
>> that. One should simply
>> have allowed honest multiple inheritance.
>>
>> The limitation of not having any implementations of
>> primitive operations or
>> component makes just no sense.
> 
> I'm wondering why nobody has replied yet.

Maybe, because I am right? (:-))

> I think it to be a known thing. Interfaces are by definition
> implementation-less.

Yep, a bankrupt bank is known to be money-less... An  implementation-less
program may sound funny, alas it turns into reality. As I described in my
previous post, we have a growing amount of code that is just noise.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de