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-Thread: 103376,34257fd17abeba14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Peter Amey Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [SPARK] Code safety and information hiding Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:55:25 +0100 Message-ID: <4l5estFbff9U1@individual.net> References: <4l2mcnFee3k7U1@individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net GgE6bkJxeSuuWgcnMCk/+wv+sSOpOULsqaociEQ+YTDyz7+Rg= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6335 Date: 2006-08-24T11:55:25+01:00 List-Id: Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > Peter Amey wrote: > [snip] > >> SPARK doesn't prohibit package-spec variables (actually it did in the >> very early days but a large and influential customer made us change >> our minds); however, it does nag you in various ways if you make use >> of them. Abstract own variables and refinement clauses are a much >> better solution! > > > I think it would be better if you'd educated your customer on how to use > that better solution, and kept SPARK as it was. Now we probably would, then (1991?) we were very small and we _really_ needed that customer! Our nagging really is persistent though and I don't think any current SPARK projects continue to abuse own variable visibility. > > Interesting that my aside on my personal preference for terminology has > generated so much traffic. > Indeed, unexpected rambles are one of the few remaining pleasures of usenet! Peter