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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,248f80acc3d5ccb3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Objects properties -  Ada design issues question
Date: 2000/02/04
Message-ID: <s9maq254dh25@corp.supernews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 581630597
References: <s9ljhv6jdh127@corp.supernews.com>
 <877lgklryd.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Date: 2000-02-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Florian Weimer wrote in message <877lgklryd.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>...
>"Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>         A : [property]  constant Integer;
>>         B : [property]  Integer;
>
>Using [] isn't a good idea, because it doesn't fit Ada very well.
>(This character isn't used by the language now, perhaps that's why
>you chose it.)  In addition, I would preserve [] (and @) for Objective
>Ada. ;)


I used  [ ] in my example  just to show that the property keyword
is optional in my suggestion. Everything could be done without
using it at all.

Regards,
Vladimir Olensky