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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a81d7835683dac7b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-12 10:49:25 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: amado.alves@netcabo.pt (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1rio_Amado_Alves?=)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: maximum number of lines per spec (was: Bases 1.52)
Date: 12 Sep 2003 10:49:22 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <17eddf9f.0309120949.2868f601@posting.google.com>
References: <4a4de33a.0309021059.53f71234@posting.google.com>
 <4060780.x1l89WMggb@linux1.krischik.com>
 <17eddf9f.0309092349.2ff22de2@posting.google.com>
 <1301057.xhkpTmYQhd@linux1.krischik.com>
 <17eddf9f.0309120258.cd58f31@posting.google.com>
 <bjsga0$e4i$1@hercules.btinternet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.113.164.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1063388964 22933 127.0.0.1 (12 Sep 2003 17:49:24
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Sep 2003 17:49:24 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42427
Date: 2003-09-12T17:49:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> > ... maximum of 50 lines per package spec... (Marius)
> I don't really see the point of such a recommendation - the
> size of an spec is the size the problem demands. Ada.Strings.
> Unbounded is >200 lines (after stripping comments and
> context clauses) - because that's what the problem requires.

You're right in principle of course, but the problem is that the
problem is not perfectly defined a priori in the case of containers
i.e. the range of possible extensions of the problem is still wide and
saying 50 lines is one way of focusing on one region of that range.

Ada.String.Unbounded is so big because of all the (a) combinations
with String and Character for construction and conversion, and (b)
pairs procedure/function for the same operation.  In the case of a
generic container package (a) is reduced if not eliminated.  And (b)
is not essential, and can be rethinked considering other forces at
play (including desired sizes).

All existing generic container packages have an essential signature
that fits well within 50 lines.

Anyway you're right if you permit the future standard to be any number
of pages long. Just note there might be objections to this from the
educational world at least. I for one.

Another force at play here is the general proposal to have a *minimal*
standard and a *big* Conventional Ada Library (outside the standard
but supported by a strong coalition of users and compiler vendors).