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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.230.98 with SMTP id sx2mr13457310pbc.1.1335839582737; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:33:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: r9ni118019pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X? Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:32:50 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5> <4f97bf40$0$6559$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <11hojzrgyl24o$.1rbxahkuoy4ab$.dlg@40tude.net> <19h14pweusucs$.1q59fpys2663d.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1335839579 1882 69.95.181.76 (1 May 2012 02:32:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 02:32:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Date: 2012-04-30T21:32:50-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:19h14pweusucs$.1q59fpys2663d.dlg@40tude.net... > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:42:24 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: >... >> Note that the things that you mentioned are called "categories", >> "characteristics", and "aspects", respectively, in Ada. > > This is only a game of words. However you name it, it will have all > properties of MI. You are not making any sense. There is no "inheritance" of these things; they're reconstructed or even lost for subsequent types. Privacy, for instance, is never inherited. I can see why someone that thinks everything should be OOP might consider these "interfaces", but it is irrelevant because there is no inheritance, much less any multiple inheritance. >> You could put them >> all under the unbrella of "properties", but what's important here is that >> the rules are necessarily different for each grouping. For instance, >> "categories" are not necessarily inherited, and can be view-specific >> (like >> "is private"). > > You cannot inherit a category. Category = class. You can belong to a > category or not. Inheritance is nothing but a proposition that some T > belongs to some class (category). This means that it has characteristics, > properties, attributes of members from the class = implements the > interface > of the class. MI is nothing but an ability for T to participate in more > than just one class. You're right: it's just wording, and you're inventing your own meaning for them as you go. Which makes it impossible to have a useful discussion -- which is too bad. I'm out of this one. Randy.