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,efe03f20164a417b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-24 13:49:43 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!butch!cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com!l107353 From: l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com (Garlington KE) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: An observation of Ada (may offend) Date: 24 Mar 1995 19:45:11 GMT Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. Message-ID: <3kv7g7$o7d@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> References: <3kbkm1$41o@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <3kcflv$164a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Date: 1995-03-24T19:45:11+00:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) wrote: : The point is that the software maintainer can look at the source : file and know what child units exist, not that implementers are : forbidden to add them... : Right, this is and should be a voluntary annotation in most : environments. But I expect that if support is forthcoming, the : safety critical people will not only use it, their coding standards : will insist on it. As a safety-critical person, I don't have a problem with someone wanting this pragma, but I wouldn't see us scrambling to add this to our coding standards, either. My compiler, design tool, and CM tool all provide concise descriptions of the structure of my application; I expect that the compiler, at least, will continue to do so for Ada 95 and include package hierarchies in that description. I would be more concerned with the issue of having to modify the parent package every time I add a child. Usually, our coding standards prohibit references of this type, since (a) it adds cost and (b) the more items you have to change, the greater the likelihood of inadvertantly inserting an error. Personally, I'm looking forward to being able to reuse more packages without modifications. I think this will significantly improve safety (if we don't break the compiler along the way! :) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Garlington GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com F-22 Computer Resources Lockheed Fort Worth Co. If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.