Re: Inherited Methods and such

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:34:13 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov writes:
>>> On 17 Wrz, 23:07, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> No, I meant C++ does not have a notation for Ada's concept of a class.
>>
>> Neither Ada has (I mean a "notation of concept" (:-)). But T& is
>> close to T'Class, and IMO the concept of a class as a set of types
>> [obtained upon inheritance] and a type to represent that set is same
>> in both languages.  Ada separates the set and its representative,
>> C++ does not.
> 
> I'm not following you.  Do you mean to say that T'Class is not a
> notation for Ada's concept of a class?

Yes. IMO, concepts do not have notations, maybe in category theory, but not
in a programming language [*]. In Ada T'Class *denotes* a concrete type. It
does not denote the concepts of type, of class, of computing, of late
binding etc.

In a concrete program T'Class may express a concept in the application
domain space. 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. That
IMO is beyond the language Ada, and is a purely religious concept. (Sorry
for a pun (:-))

--------------------------------
* Maybe, in Prolog, in some very narrow and specific sense.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de