Re: Subprogram Renaming

["James A. Squire" <m193884@CSEHP3.MDC.COM>]

On Sat, 6 Apr 1996 06:13:56, Robert Dewar <dewar@CS.NYU.EDU> wrote:
> James Squire said
>
> "So I am totally at a loss to see how Ada95 added anything to the case
> cited in 6.2 of the Rationale to allow you to do something you weren't
> able to do in Ada83."
>
> I don't see this is so confusing in the Rationale. The new thing, as is
> clear from your quote, is being allowed to use a subprogram renaming
> declaration AS A BODY (in particular as a completion).

And my question was, why does being able to rename a subprogram AS A
BODY matter?  What is so NEW about this?  Why should I care about this
NEW thing?

> The notion (and syntax) of a subprogram renaming declaration of course
> is not new, so there is no point in looking for a change in that section.

Indeed, and why was this not considered sufficient?

> But I realize that a lot of people need examples (I hate them :-) so
> here is one:
>
> package q is
>   procedure j;
> end q;
>
> package body q is
>    ...
>    procedure j renames k;

which looks like a rename of a spec to me.  I can do this in Ada83.

> end q;

--
James Squire
MDA Avionics Tools & Processes
ja_squire@csehp3.mdc.com
"one of these days I'm going to better myself by going to Knight school"
"You'll be a web knight instead of a web page!"