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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4103f02f9e6c4df2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-12 16:53:49 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!195.224.53.60!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!gxn.net!server6.netnews.ja.net!server4.netnews.ja.net!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news11-gui.server.ntli.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3A88F4D0.3821CC6D@linuxchip.demon.co.uk> From: Dr Adrian Wrigley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 0y wish list: "with private" References: <968p1e$8m7$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:48:16 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.253.132.124 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news11-gui.server.ntli.net 982025279 62.253.132.124 (Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:47:59 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:47:59 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5205 Date: 2001-02-13T00:48:16-08:00 List-Id: 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