Re: Ada OOP alternatives?

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:

> This would make
> it possible to dispense with private parts and put all of the
> "private" stuff into package bodies.

Hmm, I would consider private declarations rather as a private interface.

It is quite common that things are implemented incrementally, with
children
packages encapsulating the increments. In effect a huge "private land"
stretches between pure specifications and pure implementations. It is
difficult to invent something instead. I remember how awkward it was in
Ada
83. Removing private interfaces would mean a sort of monolithic
all-at-once
design. How are you going to handle that?

In the rest I agree with you. Further, I would like to see a sup****t for a
kind of "non-cooperative model of visibility." By this I mean the linker
or
what else would be used instead, to map the private stuff read-only, in
the
contexts where only public view is available. I.e. "non-visibility rules"
enforced by memory mapping.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de