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,ac5c3bc59168d76
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Subprogram Renaming
Date: 1996/04/08
Message-ID: <dewar.829015659@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 146475509
references: <md5:046A59600C3FEFC327385C3E914D6997>
 <316951C3.CE4@csehp3.mdc.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

James Squire said

"And my question was, why does being able to rename a subprogram AS A
BODY matter?  What is so NEW about this?  Why should I care about this
NEW thing?"

Well any new feature may or may not be useful to you, but please study
my example more carefully, you CANNOT do whyat I suggested in Ada 83.

The new feature is, as shown in my example, the ability to provide a
completion using a renaming, instead of a normal body. This saves having
to write a junk wrapper routine with an extra call.

It is most useful when used in the private part of a spec.