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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,de7dd126d6737f3a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Callback in Ada
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:21:30 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <ifvvgd$h28$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <8lc2d0Fb6jU1@mid.individual.net>
 <4cf0ec67$0$6882$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <icrshe$lt2$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <bzqdsw6r417k$.1s3wvoc43c87y.dlg@40tude.net>
 <393221c0-ac56-436f-b3f8-280c40d5a53a@j1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
 <chcmits7h2ee$.13wauqjel7qky$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <afd06b3b-c606-4756-8b82-8a21a8f50804@e4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
 <10p6vzd761rdz$.1gtmc0fk6t9rb.dlg@40tude.net> <id1k89$1vc$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <op.vom17bb6ule2fv@garhos>
 <704b1c18-9d58-420f-b7af-205ccd1ca7ad@g26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
 <wccsjxbqttk.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <ifq65i$gf1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <wcck4inqpij.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <iftfko$m0h$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <ifvp6h$qga$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <wccmxngzc0x.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1294172493 17480 69.95.181.76 (4 Jan 2011 20:21:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 20:21:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16324
Date: 2011-01-04T14:21:30-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message 
news:wccmxngzc0x.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
...
> Others argued that we don't want to give people the ability to
> completely dispense with Ada's separation of spec and body.
> Also, the expression function syntax is nice for short
> "one liners", where the extra verbiage of "begin" and
> "end Blah;" is just noise.

To expand on this a bit.

Ada always has had the ability to put arbitrary expressions into package 
specifications (default expressions, initializing expressions, etc.). This 
new capability just provides a way to give those expressions a convinient 
name.

OTOH, Ada only has one way to put a body into a package specification (via a 
generic instantiation - and it is rarely used for this purpose). Adding more 
ways to put a body into a package specification seems to change the model of 
the language, and might also pose new implementation difficulties 
(implementations might somehow depend on the absence of bodies). Indeed, it 
is likely that there are language rules which depend on this absence (I 
distinctly remember a freezing rule that only works because there cannot be 
a procedure call in a package specification, although I wasn't able to turn 
up a reference to that). So allowing full bodies in package specifications 
is a lot more risky than just allowing expressions.

                                Randy.