Xref: utzoo comp.object:3367 comp.lang.eiffel:1543 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!JNCS@uno.edu From: jncs@uno.edu Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel Subject: Re: Unification: Class=Type=Module Message-ID: <00947B3D.46D89E40@uno.edu> Date: 26 Apr 91 14:52:46 GMT References: <1991Apr23.142800.12215@bony1.bony.com> ,<1991Apr25.074758.6153@jyu.fi> Sender: news@rex.cs.tulane.edu Reply-To: jncs@uno.edu Lines: 32 In article <1991Apr25.074758.6153@jyu.fi>, sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes: >In article davis@barbes.ilog.fr (Harley Davis) writes: >> >>In article <1991Apr23.142800.12215@bony1.bony.com> richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) writes: >> >> One of the things I liked about "Object Oriented Software Construction" >> by B. Meyer, was the idea that a class is both a type and a module. >> ... > >Otherwise, I agree with Davis against the more orthodox view. >Thus, the package/module facilities of e.g. Ada and Modula-2, >when wisely used, are more versatile than the "one type at a time" >approach of CLU (the original ADT language) and most OOPL's. > > >Markku Sakkinen Using the module facilities in Ada and Modula2, I have always been of the mind of using one module to represent one ADT. I have seen examples of modules containing several abstractions, as well as modules inside of modules and I have yet to see what is gained by doing this; I do see what is lost : I cannot not use one of the Abstractions without the others. I see an abstraction as just that, a functional model of data and behavior and as such I want to put it as a library unit. I would like to see examples where the packaging of several abstractions, or the nesting of modules is a proper abstraction modelling. J. Nino Computer Science Department University of New Orleans