TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Date:
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 02:11:21 +0300
Reply-To:
"Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>; from Jens Jakob Jensen at Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:31:55 +0100
Organization:
h w c employees, b f
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (12 lines)
>I consider Ada packages as static (non-instantiable) classes, where children
>inherits their static nature.
>  Does that make sense ?
Too narrow sense. Although you do not instantiate non-generic packages (if you
do not treat "with" clause as a kind of instantiation), you may instantiate
new types from them, deriving from private types declared in those packages.
  Look at the difference between "new" in C++ and "new" in Ada. "new" in C++
is run-time action, which produces new copy of object of the class, while
"new" in Ada is compile-time action, which produces new type, and that new
type is neither subtype nor supertype of original type... but it is defined
by the same package as the original type.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2