Re: Ada Successor Language

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 18-06-26 18:38 , Simon Wright wrote:
> ric.wai88@gmail.com writes:
>
>> I hope I can opt to be out-side of this "Ada" community who seem bent
>> on wasting copious time determining overly contrived ways of
>> destroying Ada from the inside out.. Apparently because Ada's
>> carefully enforced discipline is too inconvenient, or something.
>
> I agree with you. It feels as though we have a few people around who
> enjoy wild flights of fancy.

Hey, the subject is "Ada Successor Language". Some non-conventional 
ideas should be allowed, no?

Regarding Dmitry's and my suggestions to split the OO concept into a few 
simpler primitives, instead of bundling them all into tagged types, it 
has been conventional to use just such a "building block" approach to 
defend some aspects of the design of Ada95 and later Ada versions -- 
most often, to defend the lack of built-in multiple inheritance, for 
which Ada is said to provide building blocks from which the designer can 
build the kind of MI she needs.

Perhaps the suggestions for untagged record extension and class-wide 
types rooted in untagged types are not exactly building blocks -- I 
don't now see how tagged types could be built from such blocks -- but at 
least they are in same spirit.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .