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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3a9b49a9162025eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-06 22:28:09 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: slatyb@yahoo.com (K)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Bye-bye Ada ? (Ada95 Wholesale Changes?)
Date: 6 Feb 2003 22:28:09 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <4c2ec8a8.0302062228.69da3848@posting.google.com>
References: <lmx_9.2638$c6.1784@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>
 <3E3B7BB5.A1A070@adaworks.com> <3NY_9.9226$x63.6255@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
 <3E40A07A.CD174746@adaworks.com> <1044457651.769640@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <3E42A61C.20905@cogeco.ca> <3E432DD4.7F256C85@adaworks.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.219.89.90
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1044599289 11907 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2003 06:28:09
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Feb 2003 06:28:09 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:33864
Date: 2003-02-07T06:28:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message news:<3E432DD4.7F256C85@adaworks.com>...
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote:
> 
> > If I look at a spec of a package I want to "clean up", and
> > I don't like the way the data type is presented, and want
> > to make some sort of wholesale change to the package, I'll
> > first make the necessary tweaks or major changes to the
> > specs. This may include:
> >
> >   - Changing constants to enumerated types / vice versa
> 
> One of the things I find useful is to make constants into function
> declarations.  As a trivial example,
> 
>        package Constants is
>            function Ten return Integer;
>            pragma Inline(Ten);
>            function Avogradro return Float;
>            pragma Inline(Avogadro);
>        end Constants;
> 
> something I cannot do in C++ because of the need to have a full
> implementation to create an inlined function.   This allows me
> to compile the body separately, have whatever implementation
> I wish, and modify the implementation if the need arises without
> changing the specification.

If the function is inlined, won't a change in the function body
force a recompilation of any package that called the function?
And if so, then isn't the effect the same as a specification change?