Re: SOLVED! Decoupled Mutual Recursion Challenger

[jmartin@baleen.cs.ucla.edu (Jay Martin)]

jgv@swl.msd.ray.com (John Volan) writes:

>Don't underestimate the complexities involved here.  Your "package
>forward" idea is essentially identical to the "package abstract"
>concept I suggested a while back (although my proposal didn't require
>any new Ada reserved-words :-).  When I presented the idea of "package
>abstracts", I at least considered some of the issues they raise:

>1. Is a package abstract an optional feature, or are you compelled to
>   precede every package spec with a package abstract?  If optional,
>   how do you distinguish a package spec that has a preceding abstract
>   from one that does not?  Or are we creating a situation analogous to
>   the Ada83 problem of an "optional body for a bodiless package spec"?

>2. How do you distinguish a "with"-clause that only imports a package
>   abstract from one that imports the whole package spec?

>3. Can a package-with-abstract be generic?  If so, where does the generic
>   clause go?  How do you instantiate such a beast?  What impact does this
>   have on the whole generic contract scheme?

>4. This is much too late for 9X, and has to be left for 0X, if it goes
>   anywhere at all.  Even if all the difficulties can be ironed out, is
>   this feature worth the added compiler complexity, when there are
>   reusable workarounds that already effectively extend the language?

1. Optional, No, No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Who cares. If the standard can't be easily modified as was the
   case for Ada83 then Ada9x is dead.  The Compiler complexity is trivial,
  the language would be cleaner.


Ada9x is too obese and is being too effected by trying to be an
"elegant" (rigid) extension of obese Ada83.  I really don't understand
why can't some clown spend a few minutes to come up with a cleaner
smaller (more minimalist) Ada style language.  My theory of why CS is
not coming up with one is: (1) Most Computer Scientists are
masturbating on useless theoretic, pseudo "huge breakthroughs" and
"scientific" things.  Language design requires them to sink into the
abyss of unholy "social science" and the law of the lowest common
denominator.  (2) Even if one did, political jealousy and power games
within the Computer Science community would not allow them to
recognize, except, support and then champion a really good and
software engineering efficient language.

(Can't do anything other than rant now (got to fix bugs)) Jay.