Re: Package Parts [was: Ada GC and a bunch of other stuff]

[eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)]

In article <4gh2da$ffb@dayuc.dayton.saic.com> John G. Volan <John_Volan@ccmail.dayton.saic.com> writes:

  > However, regardless of whether the part-names are enumeration literals
  > or named numbers, there's something a bit unsatisfying about having to
  > declare a separate configuration package first just to house the
  > part-names, before you can actually declare the target package in its
  > various parts.  I think it would be better if a package could remain an
  > autonomous, self-contained entity, regardless of whether it happens to
  > be decomposed into multiple parts or not.

   How about:

   package Stack(Interface, Extended_Interface, Completion);

   package Stack(Interface) is...
   end Stack(Interface);

   package Stack(Extended_Interface) is...
   end  Stack(Extended_Interface);
 
   etc.

   (Lots of other good ideas that work well with this approach deleted.)

   In the GNAT library model, the one line declaration of the parts
would have to be in a separate file with a new extension, .adp?, but
other than that no problem.  Or you could make the part enumeration a
header for the first package part:

   parts(Interface, Extended_Interface, Completion);
   package Stack(Interface) is...
   end Stack(Interface);

   Making each part list all of the partitions is the third approach:

   package Stack(Interface of Interface, Extended_Interface, Completion) is
   end Stack(Interface);

   But this could lead to more hassle in maintenance.


					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...