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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,93fa00d728cc528e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,93fa00d728cc528e X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-25 20:58:48 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!fauern!news.th-darmstadt.de!terra.wiwi.uni-frankfurt.de!zeus.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de!news.dfn.de!swiss.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!delphi.cs.ucla.edu!not-for-mail From: jmartin@baleen.cs.ucla.edu (Jay Martin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.object Subject: Re: SOLVED! Decoupled Mutual Recursion Challenger Date: 24 Oct 1994 15:37:23 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Dept. Message-ID: <38hcv3$j85@baleen.cs.ucla.edu> References: <1994Oct18.221751.15457@swlvx2.msd.ray.com> <38289r$79m@oahu.cs.ucla.edu> <1994Oct19.143843.372@wdl.loral.com> <38fi4r$l81@oahu.cs.ucla.edu> <1994Oct24.174231.1897@swlvx2.msd.ray.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: baleen.cs.ucla.edu Keywords: Ada9X, "withing" problem X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0.b3.0 #8 (NOV) Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.lang.ada:16175 comp.object:16596 Date: 1994-10-24T15:37:23-07:00 List-Id: 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.