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: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard Date: 1996/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 178951112 references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <50q1b8$1c0a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <50q1b8$1c0a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, Norman H. Cohen wrote: >Surely that could also be explained away as a "source representation >issue": A with clause in a .adp file (a separately compiled private >part) is just a representation of the identical with clause appearing on >the entire package spec. But what if the private part says "with P", but the visible part references P? Ada says this is legal, but one would expect it to be illegal. I'm curious as to the intended syntax of the private part. Is it just the stuff after "private"? So the file starts with some (indented) declarations? Quite legal, but a bit ugly, especially since its semantics depends on its file name (just like in C, heh, heh). >The source-representation argument can be used to justify any language >extension whose use can be transformed statically into what we would all >recognize as standard Ada. The argument is easily abused, and I think >that anyone applying that argument too extremely will lose his >credibility. If this person provides a computer program that can translate from the weird source representation into a more recognizable one, then that would go a long way toward preserving that person's credibility! - Bob