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: 103376,21bbcb8deeeab673 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada95 Pretty-Printers/Coding styles Date: 1997/07/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257244626 References: <33A54D07.4E14@aisf.com> <5o9f0s$it2@client2.news.psi.net> <5odaf6$5gp@drn.zippo.com> <5oe5vi$ho0$1@client3.news.psi.net> <33BBEC62.5F16@gsg.eds.com> <868655155.14288@dejanews.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jeff said <> However, one conclusion from our discussions was that the kind of processing that Ada-ASSURED can do is not sufficient for our purposes. In particular, two of the checks which we consider essential (separate specs required for all subprograms, and spelling of identifiers required to be consistent with the matching declaration) seem beyond its reach. It is for this sort of check (we have in mind a number of similar semantic checks), that it seems more effective to embed a formatting tool into the compiler, or, perhaps as an alternative, build an ASIS-based tool for performing the checking. Of course this does not give you on the fly editing assistance. Some people like this, and indeed the Ada modfe we supply for EMACS precisely does those simple syntactically driven formatting rules automatically, but currently does not go further than this (although interestingly, EMANCS is hooked into the gnatf xref output, and using this interface, it is not impossible to do some of the semantic checking, certyainly the above two rules are in reach). Jeff you never really confirmed that the two cases above are ones that Ada-ASSURED could not handle. At first you said that the identifier consistency case could be handled, but I think this was based on a misundestanding that I was talking simply about enforcing a consistent casing style, and I was talking about something quite different. Robert