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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,5af5c381381ac5a7 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!u-picardie.fr!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada requires too much typing! Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:08:02 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Message-ID: References: <03f84a0a-e070-43a9-9b68-920345f64f94@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <1c704c1e-1b2e-427f-ae0e-3b2a0f976c7c@y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> <10855f68-76a1-4600-ba65-464dab6c6274@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <35dd1a8f-1af8-4979-9663-29f7f4cb302e@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1276207687 12507 69.95.181.76 (10 Jun 2010 22:08:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:08:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12587 Date: 2010-06-10T17:08:02-05:00 List-Id: "Vadim Godunko" wrote in message news:35dd1a8f-1af8-4979-9663-29f7f4cb302e@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Jun 10, 10:54 am, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote: >> Le Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:34:07 +0200, Vadim Godunko a >> �crit:> I want to known more about how to use OOP in Ada without access >> types! >> >> Wadim, if saying OOP, you meant dynamic dispatching, then you are indeed >> not required to use access type for that. >No, I more asked for real example where Ada's OOP is be used without >access types in OOP way. The only known example is Tuker's work on >some part of ASIS 05, but from my point of view this work is set of >tricks and assumptions successful for concrete example but not for >general use. Claw only uses a handful of access types in its interfaces (internally is a different story, but irrelevant to this discussion). Most Claw example programs use no access types at all. > By "access types" I mean access to classwide types. If you need to do this, using an indefinite container to hold the objects is preferable to using explicit access types. Again, access types probably are used to implement the container, but they aren't visible anywhere. This eliminates the horrors of explicit storage management and most (or all, depending on the implementation) of the unsafeness of access types without any distributed overhead. (Unlike garbage collection, which has to be done on all objects to work, so even objects that don't need management have to pay for it.) Randy.