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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac5c3bc59168d76
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mab@dst17.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: Subprogram Renaming
Date: 1996/04/11
Message-ID: <4kjcc0$oqc@wdl1.wdl.loral.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 146941873
references: <md5:FE4AB546A8392541EDC1E3FE12E3D8AF>
 <316AEA8D.7600@csehp3.mdc.com>
organization: Loral Western Development Labs
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <316AEA8D.7600@csehp3.mdc.com> "James A. Squire" <m193884@CSEHP3.MDC.COM> writes:
>Still (!) Nobody has answered the $64,000.00 question:  WHY IS THIS SUCH
>A GOOD THING?  In other words, why did they waste their time adding this
>ability to rename a subprogram body.  Why should I do:
>package q is
>  procedure j;
>end q;
>package body q is
>  procedure k;
>  procedure j renames k;
>end q;
>when I can do:
>package q is
>  procedure k;
>end q;
>package body q is
>  procedure k is ...
>end q;
>Now that I KNOW I can do in Ada83.  Since the parameter spec has to
>match exactly, I see no point to doing a rename in the body and hiding
>it from the user.  All you are changing is the name it goes by.  What's
>the point?

Actaully the important case to look at is the following:

package q is
  procedure j;
end q;

with t;
package body q is
  procedure j renames t.k;
end q;

This allows the reexport of a procedure defined elsewhere with out requiring
a possible error introducing wrapper procedure.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl.loral.com