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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.mixmin.net!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada202X: Easy to use "UML private"-like components
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:07:17 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <kqa8tm$ahr$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <69246de0-4b33-4d47-b5be-a45e8c911fb0@googlegroups.com>
 <wccwqpnux8n.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <b2m2csFh64iU1@mid.individual.net>
 <9qrbs8l828t3pvgves504a8fm7o1c7tcpj@4ax.com>
 <b2moeeFlshhU1@mid.individual.net>
 <91qcs81k6am9l3u3n19lj0b072lc48td69@4ax.com>
 <b2nmjsFrifnU1@mid.individual.net> <wccmwqhkm22.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1im71djlxwm94$.fbjv1si7kmvj$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1372104438 10811 69.95.181.76 (24 Jun 2013 20:07:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:07:18 +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 V6.00.2900.6157
X-Original-Bytes: 2501
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182070
Date: 2013-06-24T15:07:17-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:1im71djlxwm94$.fbjv1si7kmvj$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:12:53 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:
>
>> It is also the reason for the private part kludge: the compiler sees
>> the size of the full type for a private type (assuming it is known
>> at compile time).  But this reasoning makes no sense to me, because
>> that's not how Ada compilers work.  Any reasonable implementation
>> of generics and inlining needs to look at bodies.  So full types
>> should be in bodies, and compilers should look there (at least
>> in optimizing mode) to find out their size.
>
> ... or there should be no generics.
>
> The kludge here rather is generics and inlining, both basically are macro
> expansions.

Or better, they can be done at bind time without any impact on what 
compilers look at. Bob is just plain wrong in the above -- perhaps that is 
how GNAT and AdaMagic works, but there is no reason that an Ada compiler has 
to (or *ought* to) work that way.

                   Randy.