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: 1996/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 178992223 references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <503sbo$j45@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <507akg$t9u@krusty.irvine.com> <50q1b8$1c0a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Norm said "Surely that could also be explained away as a "source representation issue": A with clause in a .adp file (a separately compiled private part) is just a representation of the identical with clause appearing on the entire package spec. The source-representation argument can be used to justify any language extension whose use can be transformed statically into what we would all recognize as standard Ada. The argument is easily abused, and I think that anyone applying that argument too extremely will lose his credibility." Right, with the balance between credibility loss and functionality being judged partly on the value of the added functionality. My view is that simply allowing the private part in a separate file is clearly within bounds. Your suggestion with respect to the context clauses is pushing it, but we would plan on doing that as well. Of course the problem is that the with clause that is buried in some separate file applies to the visible spec, which is unclean. It would be nice if the language ad with clauses that applied only to the private part.