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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,8591be732d0fce98 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Ada OOP alternatives? Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <462e0cf4-1d53-4918-b30b-dd3d8df90f1b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <487d9636$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <6e5uq2F5g7n6U2@mid.individual.net> <18maowv5tf52i$.winpalz4hj7p$.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:56:44 +0200 Message-ID: <138raucqw95gm.4bnfy7y43il7$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jul 2008 20:56:43 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 4c1e2095.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=d94l@1d9Y]ef1oJaJ0@dmgMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:50:31 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > >> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:36:28 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote: >> >>> So it's clearly feasible to have information in bodies used >>> when compiling clients. >> >> It is feasible, but makes little sense. Why there should be bodies >> then? > > I think you mean, "Why there should be specs then?". ;-) I used to review C code that packed almost 80% of executable code in the header files... (:-)) >> What is the property of a body the specification does not have, and >> reverse? >> >> In other words, provided the compiler could not compile specifications >> without bodies, why the code reader/maintainer should be able to do this? > > I want separate specs and bodies, not for the compiler's benefit, but > for the programmer's benefit. I want to be able to read a concise spec, > without having to wade through the entire body. There are two problems with that. The first one is that the difference is not obvious. Why legality check is less than "full compilation", so that the delta cannot be left for the binder/linker. The second one is that if the delta is sufficient, then the reader should probably become aware of it. In short, it is difficult to drive a margin. > The compiler should check legality without looking at other bodies. But > it should look at bodies when generating code (at least if optimization > is turned on). But what would you do with dynamically linked libraries, remote partitions and other lately bound stuff? I think that the time of monolithic systems is gone. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de