Re: Ada 0y wish list: "with private"

[Dr Adrian Wrigley <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk>]

Thierry Lelegard wrote:
> 
> Recently, several wishlist items for Ada 0y were posted in c.l.a.
> Like many old Ada users, I have a couple of them. I would like to
> propose one for discussion: a "with private" extension.

I'd like something a bit similar. "separate" for the private part.
This would allow the private part to be (for example) in a separate
file.  It could have its own context clause, thus obviating the
need for the "with private" extension.

I think the separation of the private part would make it easier
to separate the specification from the implementation properly.
For example, you usually need to edit the specification when
writing the implementation.  Project architects could forbid
this (keep the spec read-only) if the private was separate.

I seem to remember hearing this was discussed in the early
design of Ada, and abandoned because of the extra burden imposed.
It would obviate the "private   ... --  not specified by the language"
annotations in the ARM.

Perhaps the obvious syntax is "private is separate;" in the spec
where the full private part would have been.
--
Adrian Wrigley