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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dbcfe2b0a74da57e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!213.239.142.2.MISMATCH!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!193.201.147.67.MISMATCH!feeder6.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.79.MISMATCH!transit4.hitnews.eu!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!62.253.162.218.MISMATCH!news-in.ntli.net!newsrout1-win.ntli.net!ntli.net!news.highwinds-media.com!xara.net!gxn.net!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Inherited Methods and such
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:10:35 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m2ir67n0hg.fsf@mac.com>
References: <1190039166.449906.15070@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <1190041908.492024.263110@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
 <1190060534.958182.51800@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
 <87tzptuhku.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <1190125656.071013.303640@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
 <1ds7l1l7oeyrx.1cpsvrpkikour.dlg@40tude.net>
 <87k5qnvn4q.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <qdnrodryn9bf$.1w6blm94oq05.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1190149840 28337 62.49.19.209 (18 Sep 2007 21:10:40
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:10:40 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ahqUB3A99EK9S8eXDAm8Y7HxBtU=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (darwin)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2026
Date: 2007-09-18T22:10:35+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> The latter an OOA theologian would call "class." (Did you mean
> this?) They argue that there exists some inherent objective relation
> between dogs (canis lupus familiaris), the word "dog," and
> Dog'Class.

These seem to me to be different modelling levels, and suggesting
there might be a relationship of that sort between them would be a
category error.

None of the OOA heroes I know would make such a mistake.

Dog'Class is clearly an expression in an Ada-based platform-specific
model; at the platform-independent level Dog might have all sorts of
different connotations depending on what domain was being
modelled. 'Dog' (itself, and in its relationships to other classes in
the domain) would be quite different between say a model for a
veterinary practice and one for a police drug squad.