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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac5c3bc59168d76 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Jonas Nygren Subject: Re: Subprogram Renaming Date: 1996/04/11 Message-ID: <316D0370.6A3F@ehs.ericsson.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 146907758 references: <316BC3D6.14E7@csehp3.mdc.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Ericsson Hewlett-Packard Telecommunications AB mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0GoldB1 (WinNT; I) Date: 1996-04-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > > YOu put something in the spec if it is part of the specification. One visible part of the ^^ > can imagine cases where it is part of the spec that A renames B, as for > example when you deliberately have two names for the identical same > operation. > > But if the renaming is essentailly just a choice of how a particular > function is implemented then it is a serious violation of the abstraction > to expose the renaming. But it could be put in the private part, without 'exposing the renaming'. Robert mentioned before that this had a performance drawback but I can't see that this would be the case if you have a generic package. I also believe I saw something along the lines that if the renaming is put in the package body this limits the possibilities to further override the sub- program. This could be a motive to put the renaming in the spec part. ------------------------------------------------------- -- Jonas Nygren -- ehsjony@ehs.ericsson.se -------------------------------------------------------