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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,8591be732d0fce98 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada OOP alternatives? Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:36:28 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <462e0cf4-1d53-4918-b30b-dd3d8df90f1b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <487d9636$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <6e5uq2F5g7n6U2@mid.individual.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1216258588 13012 192.74.137.71 (17 Jul 2008 01:36:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:36:28 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:HeQKI1MMPvNO3RgiC1+BRPBFj1Y= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6913 Date: 2008-07-16T21:36:28-04:00 List-Id: "(see below)" writes: > On 17/07/2008 01:05, in article wcc3am9gytt.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com, > "Robert A Duff" wrote: >> I'd still rather eliminate private parts altogether. > > How would you do that while allowing ADT clients to access objects directly > (i.e. not via a pointer a la Java)? I'd have the compiler take a peek at the body when compiling the client. After all, that's what Ada compilers already do for pragma Inline. And I think incremental compilation can be a big win. In fast-compile mode, I might tolerate the "via pointer" way. It doesn't need to be a pointer into the heap, as in Java. We're just talking about the size of the type, really -- you say "access objects", but clients can't access the record components of a private type -- all they can do is declare objects and pass them around. Java, like many languages, doesn't even _have_ separate specs. (And it _still_ insists on pointers for almost everything!) So it's clearly feasible to have information in bodies used when compiling clients. - Bob