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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard Date: 1996/08/31 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177721362 references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <503sbo$j45@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <507akg$t9u@krusty.irvine.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Duff said "Quite true. Private parts are primarily an efficiency hack. But this change would be much more sweeping than my idea of allowing the private part to have its own with_clauses. (I think putting the with_clauses inside things makes more sense anyway, independent of your idea.)" Note that there is no requirement in Ada that the private part be in the same file as the rest of the spec. Two things we have considered adding as options to GNAT, which are not extensions, merely source representation issues, are to allow the private part to appear in a separate file, or to allow it to appear in the body. The one glitch, which is a little uneasy, and is where some language help would have been nice, is if you could have with statements that applied only to the private part.