From: "Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]> > At 09:35 AM 11/11/98 -0800, Mark Lundquist wrote: > >Ada supports the abstraction of "class" quite readily, even though it > >doesn't have a specialized "class" construct. I think it's the > >abstraction that is important, not the syntax. So I have to disagree; > >the lack of a special "class" construct in Ada does *not* make it very > >hard to do OO in Ada!... > > Ada 95 does have a class construct, it is spelled tagged. Well, sort of. Part of the definition a class is the specification of its public methods, but a tagged record declaration does not include this. A tagged record declaration doesn't suffice to define a class -- the type declaration together with the declarations of the primitives constitute the definition of the class. > Adding special notation for declaring classes in Ada would have created ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > either some unnecessary restrictions or backward compatibility problems. Yes -- that is the position I was taking. My use of the phrase "special class construct" is to be understood as identical with your phrase "special notation for declaring classes".