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: 2002-02-02 12:37:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com> Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.180.40 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com 1012682165 ST000 208.191.180.40 (Sat, 02 Feb 2002 15:36:05 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 15:36:05 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: TSU[@IONFJVMQVPXJZDBNFXBBZ\LPCXLLBWLOOAF@YUDUWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E[A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:36:05 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19536 Date: 2002-02-02T20:36:05+00:00 List-Id: "Nick Roberts" wrote in message news:a3hi78$18ga0c$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de... > > I suspect that, in the case of Ada, refactoring in support of legacy code is > unlikely in practice. This is largely because Ada 95 contains virtually no > incompatibilties with Ada 83, and added no features so valuable that it > would make it desirable to refactor Ada 83 code to use those features. That last phrase is an amazing assertion! Surely you don't mean it the way it looks! As a counter example, I know of a number of projects that have replaced some of their tasks with protected objects. On a much smaller scale of feature, I know of projects that have removed a great many "renames clauses" with "use type" clauses. --- Patrick Rogers Consulting and Training in: http://www.classwide.com Real-Time/OO Languages progers@classwide.com Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis (281)648-3165 Software Fault Tolerance