Re: Ada OOP syntax

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org>]

Steve wrote:
> 
> In Ada there are rules that define the scope of an object.  In my opinion 
> this syntax deficiency is the reason the "overriding" and "not overriding" 
> constructs were added to Ada 2005.  They improve the situation, but you 
> still have to look closely to figure out which entities belong to which 
> objects.
> 
> Tagged type definitions, IMO are an abomination.  If you look at Delphi (an 
> object oriented version of Pascal), or C++, C# or Java, there is no 
> ambiguity of the scope of the entities that belong to an object.

Why is it OK for the non-predefined operations of some types (integer, 
enumeration, untagged records, ...) to be separate from the type declaration, 
but not for tagged records? I'm not a fan of programming by extension (the 
correct name for OOP, which has nothing to do with object orientation), but you 
should at least be consistent in your objections.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"In the frozen land of Nador they were forced to
eat Robin's minstrels, and there was much rejoicing."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
70