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,e5eb8ca5dcea2827 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Hyman Rosen Subject: Re: Ada OO Mechanism Date: 1999/05/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 481676173 Sender: hymie@calumny.jyacc.com References: <7i05aq$rgl$1@news.orbitworld.net> <7i17gj$1u1k@news2.newsguy.com> <7icgkg$k4q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 927585831 2314 209.49.126.226 (24 May 1999 22:43:51 GMT) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 1999 22:43:51 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-05-24T22:43:51+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > Well obviously the case of extending an algebra that implements > symmetrical binary operators is a case more easily handled in > Ada than in C, I assume a specific example is not needed here? Actually, I would like a specific example - I don't understand "an algebra that implements symmetrical binary operators" or why it's easier in Ada. I'm not being difficult here - I really just don't understand the meaning of the quoted phrase, so a bit of actual code would go a long way to clarify things. > But presumably you are looking for different kinds of things? I posted the request in response to the claim that Ada allows certain object-oriented techniques that are more difficult to express in C++. I would like to see a bit of code demonstrating this, to determine to my own satisfaction whether it's really true, or whether the Ada poster doesn't know enough C++ to realize that it's easy there as well.