TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:48:11 -0500
Reply-To: Bruce Hennessy <[log in to unmask]>
From: Bruce Hennessy <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (26 lines)
-----Original Message-----
From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jens Jakob Jensen
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Designing for Ada 95?


"Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" wrote:

> Ada95 has all conventional OO features, but
> it also has very important features that do not belong to common OO stuff.
> For example, Ada packages.

I consider Ada packages as static (non-instantiable) classes, where children
inherits their static nature.
  Does that make sense ?

# What children are you referring to? If the Ada child package structure
then NO that
# does not make sense.
#
# Ada packages CAN be made to be instantiable classes (not necessarily
through Generics)
# with inheritance through the use of tagged types.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2