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: 103376,4c459ff0adb576bc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-03 05:53:20 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada
Date: 3 Feb 2002 05:53:19 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0202030553.6431291a@posting.google.com>
References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com>
 <a3hi78$18ga0c$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
 <V4Y68.326$xE7.126341269@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
 <a3hvml$183djn$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012744400 27302 127.0.0.1 (3 Feb 2002 13:53:20
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Feb 2002 13:53:20 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19559
Date: 2002-02-03T13:53:20+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:<a3hvml$183djn$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>...
> I think it's arguable whether that actually counts as 
> refactoring.

> Do the semantics really remain the same

Yes

> could the change have been made,

Yes

> safely, by a purely mechanised algorithm?

Yes,

> (I don't think so. And if it could, the algorithm would 
   have to be fiendishly complex, no?)

No

> I have never personally heard of any Ada 83 program being 
> re-engineered into Ada 95 whilst -- and this is the 
> crucial bit -- retaining the same semantics (not just 
> 'effectively the same', as above).

I find this surprising, since we see it all the time. Nick
I can't guess what Ada environment you inhabit if you never
saw this. It is indeed common for users to take large Ada 83 codes and
reengineer them into Ada 95, using Ada 95
constructs to clean up the code (Pat's use type example),
or to improve efficiency (e.g. replacing "passive" tasks
by protected types). Another example is adding pragnma
Preelaborate where possible to reduce elaboration checking
(that's something that could certainly be automated).


Robert Dewar