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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,16f39b4f57339dcb,start
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Constant as anonymous functions : the outer space beast is back
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <3c43bf9d-75f1-4d09-9388-65b83cafb1d9@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.75.149.119
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1264557435 30461 127.0.0.1 (27 Jan 2010 01:57:15
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:57:15 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.75.149.119;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8827
Date: 2010-01-26T17:57:15-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hi,

I'm back with the topic =93 constant as anonymous functions =94 ( I've
opened last year, about 10 months ago if my mind is right ) with a new
argument advocating for it : I have a simple design rule which state
that I automatically add a =93 pragma Elaborate_Body =94 in the heading of
a package specification, as soon as this package defines functions
which have the semantic of constants, because dependencies to the
specifications as supposed to be possible dependencies to these =93
constants =94, and as elaboration of these =93 constants =94 requires body
elaboration, a dependency to such a package specification is supposed
to probably requires body elaboration.

Here we are : the lack of constants as anonymous functions turn into
consequences on the package elaboration order. That's big (at least to
me).

Another argument : enabling constants to be anonymous functions would
allow to change a functions into a constant without breaking anything,
unlike what is in the actual state. Actually, there seems to be a kind
of implementation dependency in specifications due to the lack of
constants as functions.

Third, but already pointed (as I remember) when the topic was opened
about ten months ago : this would not break any existing sources and
designs.

Who want to talk about this subject ?