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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue?
Date: 1997/09/05
Message-ID: <dewar.873461538@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 270008163
References: <33E9ADE9.4709@flash.net>
 <JSA.97Aug31145336@alexandria.organon.com> <EFtF7M.12p@ecf.toronto.edu>
 <dewar.873171671@merv> <EFwAxL.LHu@ecf.toronto.edu>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-09-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Patrick Doyle says

<<  Ok, does each spec have to be in a separate compilation unit>>

nope, full nesting is allowed, so for example, a procedure can contain
nested package specs and package bodies, and this capability is frequently
used. Furthermore in this case, if you want, the body can be separately
compiled.

You could certainly imagine a trivial preprocessor for Ada that would
allow the spec and body to be (let's use our nice new word) conflated.
But I never heard of anyone building or expressing a desire for such
a tool, it would be completely useless, and indeed worse, definitely
negative in its utility.