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,
	LOTS_OF_MONEY 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: 1996/04/09
Message-ID: <dewar.829097402@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 146649030
references: <md5:FE4AB546A8392541EDC1E3FE12E3D8AF>
 <316AEA8D.7600@csehp3.mdc.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

James Squire said:

"Still (!) Nobody has answered the $64,000.00 question:  WHY IS THIS SUCH
A GOOD THING?  In other words, why did they waste their time adding this
ability to rename a subprogram body.  Why should I do:"

<deleted example>

If you think this then please answer the following question:

why do we provide subprogram renaming at all? It is after all redundant,
you could always provide a junk body?

There is no question that this is a useful new capability, especially,
as I noted before, when the renaming as body is not in the package body,
but instead in the private part of the package spec.

This is obviously better than putting a renaming in the visible part of
the spec, as Gary quite clearly explained.