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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,35782846f963b1e5
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.220.230 with SMTP id pz6mr18333084pbc.3.1341744757416;
        Sun, 08 Jul 2012 03:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni11132pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Manuel Collado <m.collado@domain.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: on the need to duplicate code for procedure signature in both
 body and interface files
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 12:52:38 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <jtboph$h4d$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <jtafi8$pvg$1@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: AQtcnCmK58GOCmVZT2XYxQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
 rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-07-08T12:52:38+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

El 08/07/2012 1:08, Nasser M. Abbasi escribi�:
> Basic question from an Ada newbie.
>
> One thing that always bothered me in Ada is the need
> to physically duplicate the code that represents the API
> of the package procedures and functions in both the interface
> and the body files (.ads and .adb).
>
> I do not like duplicating code at all. Even if it is only
> for the signature of the API, and even though the Ada
> compiler will catch any difference (assuming one changes
> the .ads and forget to update the .adb for example).

It seems you are looking for a Java way of writing code. Java uses a single 
source file for each compilation unit. Signatures of public elements are 
implicitly assumed to be the interface part, while the remaining code gives 
the implementation.

>
> Was there no other alternatives to avoid this situation
> when Ada was originally designed in order to keep the same
> good concept of separating the interface from the body, but
> somehow at the same time, eliminate the need to duplicate by
> hand the API definition code in 2 separate places?

As said in other responses, the obvious solution would be a specialized IDE 
that lets you edit a single combined spec+body source, and later split it 
on the fly into spec and body separate files for compilation.

But such IDE seems not to exist yet.

>
> I am using GNAT. I Assume this is the same in other Ada
> implementations.

Yes.

-- 
Manuel Collado - http://lml.ls.fi.upm.es/~mcollado