Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:48:11 -0500
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
# with inheritance through the use of tagged types.