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: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.236.191.70 with SMTP id f46mr11068454yhn.44.1344998912406;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 c6ni115620301qas.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.x-privat.org!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:44:40 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <k01b0d$jrm$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <e416cb92-6ec8-4514-8fa9-c35d6432b117@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4noj4zof.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <jvnchp$r5c$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wccr4rkqed5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <op.wiml9rw3ka8ora@aspire.local>
 <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wim0pbprka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wim6qpwuka8ora@aspire.local>
 <5020d1fe$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1344548685 20342 69.95.181.76 (9 Aug 2012 21:44:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:44:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2012-08-09T16:44:40-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
news:5020d1fe$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
...
> Yes! For example, he should be able to see whether or not
> Move can be inlined.  But this case is special and, being a special case,
> should not clutter the specification of Move in Ada.Strings.Fixed!

I agree, but only because users should not be in the business of 
declaring/defining inlining. The compiler can figure that out much better 
than any declaration can.

I want implementation-independent hints about performance in package 
specifications, not ones describing specific techniques. That is, a 
declaration that calls on subprogram X ought to be compiled for the fastest 
possible performance or for the smallest possible space or for the best 
tradeoff possible. How that's accomplished should be left up to the 
implementation. Aspects like Inline and Pack get in the way of letting the 
compiler do the best possible job. (I don't believe that either of those 
even belong in the language -- which is one reason why Janus/Ada does almost 
nothing with either of them.)

                                         Randy.