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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract)
Date: 1997/09/09
Message-ID: <5v3akm$6ke$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271041478
References: <EG0upp.Irq@syd.csa.com.au> <3410309E.6A32@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>
 <dewar.873780309@merv>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.873780309@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>That's a bit misleading. It is in fact NOT possible in any reasonable
>way to create a one-pass compiler for Ada 95, and certainly no one has
>done so. The design goal is a rather different one, it is to enable a
>basically one pass scan for human comprehension purposes. If you stick
>to a basically linear elaboration model, you make it easier for the
>reader.

There are indeed some "one pass" issues in the design of Ada 95.  For
example, as you've pointed out a number of times, the best intuitive
way to view the freezing rules are to think of what would be needed to
allow one-pass compilation.