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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8b8748382fcfacc1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "David Botton" Subject: Re: friend classes in ada95 (long) Date: 2000/04/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 613260888 References: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com Organization: WebUseNet Corp http://www.usenetserver.com - Home of the fastest NNTP servers on the Net. NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:21:56 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Brian Rogoff wrote in message ... >Hmmm. I find that interface MI is very clumsy in Ada. Are you saying that >you find it as easy in Ada as in Java? Somehow I think I must be >misunderstanding you; please give an example of interface MI in Ada. It certainly is not as easy, just that it can be done. I was saying that if I had the time I would make a non-standard Ada if need be to make it easier until some one high up there did. With true respect, I am sure that you can create a better example then I. > >There was some work at grafting interface MI into C++, indeed I believe >that GNU C++ may still support the "signature" proposal of Russo and >Baumgartner. I thought that stuff was neat, and hope something similar >finds its way into the next Ada. Exactly what I would love to see happen. >Ada already handles implementation MI well enough IMO, with generics and >the access discriminant trick. Agreed. I try and avoid implementation MI anyways when possible and like the control of roll your own solutions for implementation MI. David Botton