From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.52.0.193 with SMTP id 1mr3118744vdg.6.1373439785038; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:03:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.120.67 with SMTP id la3mr846003qeb.35.1373439784938; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder02.blueworldhosting.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!t19no1023290qam.0!news-out.google.com!f7ni1805qai.0!nntp.google.com!t19no1023287qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:03:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=20.133.0.8; posting-account=g4n69woAAACHKbpceNrvOhHWViIbdQ9G NNTP-Posting-Host: 20.133.0.8 References: <69246de0-4b33-4d47-b5be-a45e8c911fb0@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <011220fb-6609-4105-89e5-fe2629c27aa1@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada202X: Easy to use "UML private"-like components From: Martin Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:03:04 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2906 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16246 Date: 2013-07-10T00:03:04-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 3:39:22 PM UTC+1, Simon Wright wrote: > [stuff that Google Groups mangled even more horrifically than usual!] It really is mangling stuff up...might be this PC... > Given that the UML private/protected distinction is only relevant to > inheritance, I'd have thought it would be irrelevant to safety-critical > systems! Depends on what you can agree with your IV&V. > I have to ask, why? We have profiles to state what UML constructs will > have meaning in the translation, and what that meaning will be. Other > constructs - well, I'd forbid them on the grounds that no two team > members will have the same opinion as to what they mean, and they'll > probably get translated (if at all) into something different again. But currently we have no *standard* profiles...but we do have various in-house company profiles that are *very* similar. > Always seemed to me that people went overboard with that; why did they > feel the need to stereotype a class =ABAda:Task=BB when it could just be > marked _active_? (actually, there is a reason for using a stereotype, > which is that tags are associated with stereotypes, and you'll need > tags for {priority} and {stack}; but why not use plain =ABactive=BB?). I see what you mean...everything single thing tended to have a stereotype. I think now we'll see a bit of that again (if we get UML tools to support Ada2012!), with everything having an "aspect" stereotype/tag!! :-) > Interest has been raised in UML/Ada recently Oh, where? Here! Old projects never die...they just get re-hosted...and updated! :-) -- Martin