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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.88.195 with SMTP id bi3mr1186914wib.3.1344849963933;
        Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 n2ni107240194win.0!nntp.google.com!feed-C.news.volia.net!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news-feed.eu.lambdanet.net!texta.sil.at!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:48:13 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <e416cb92-6ec8-4514-8fa9-c35d6432b117@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4noj4zof.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <jvnchp$r5c$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wccr4rkqed5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <op.wiml9rw3ka8ora@aspire.local>
 <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wim0pbprka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <m2hasf10nc.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
In-Reply-To: <m2hasf10nc.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
Message-ID: <50211c99$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Aug 2012 15:48:09 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: a931d891.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=VVo2]kVEB0A6PJ?[X6JIXEMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOK80[U>_ljHiLnc\616M64>JLh>_cHTX3jMnQ@h<dcYa5H
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-07T15:48:09+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 07.08.12 12:01, Simon Wright wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

>> When modelling, pragmatic hints seem all the more irrelevant.  When a
>> UML tool starts to dictate how package specifications should be made,
>> I start to worry a little.
> 
> If it's a good UML tool, you shouldn't need to look at the generated
> package specs that often (you will know what they look like from looking
> at the model). IMHO.

Is it good modelling, though, to add project specific aspects
to models, such as pragmatic hints that make sense only
for a specific compiler or with a specific way of translating
a library, or linking functions for specific debugging requirements?

If not, then the interfaces generated by the UML tool
should not have these aspects, either, I should think.
At least the reader interested in the model should be spared
the debugging specifics.