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!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada202X: Easy to use "UML private"-like components Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:39:22 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <69246de0-4b33-4d47-b5be-a45e8c911fb0@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a849a84efccf4ec3e3fdf530b5c53bc9"; logging-data="7711"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/H6aMN/ovlwjNXs3iV8qUOvhnKX+yYzAw=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:efoyqY8rpHKJRHeXa4Gjm4sG1Yc= sha1:imQw9waOGET3kRKhtiLF51Ab8qE= X-Original-Bytes: 3225 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182381 Date: 2013-07-09T15:39:22+01:00 List-Id: Martin writes: Hi Martin! > On Friday, June 21, 2013 7:36:40 PM UTC+1, Robert A Duff wrote: [stuff that Google Groups mangled even more horrifically than usual!] > There are current options of how to achieve UML-like private-ness but > all are clunky and some are horrific and, given their access-types not > available for safety-critical systems (where coding standard still > often forbid such usage). Given that the UML private/protected distinction is only relevant to inheritance, I'd have thought it would be irrelevant to safety-critical systems! Rational Rose used to have the additional visibility "implementation". I took this to mean the same as "private" (and "protected"). > As to making Ada more UML-like, that's not really my goal...but I'd > certainly like to make common UML constructs easy to achieve in Ada. I have to ask, why? We have profiles to state what UML constructs will have meaning in the translation, and what that meaning will be. Other constructs - well, I'd forbid them on the grounds that no two team members will have the same opinion as to what they mean, and they'll probably get translated (if at all) into something different again. > I had hoped a standard UML <-> Ada mapping could be agreed between the > UML & Ada compiler tool vendors; certainly they all gave positive > responses to such a move all those years ago. They all had company's > developing their own Stereotype/Tag UML<->Ada solutions, so all saw > this wheel being re-invented year after year, company after company. Always seemed to me that people went overboard with that; why did they feel the need to stereotype a class «Ada:Task» when it could just be marked _active_? (actually, there is a reason for using a stereotype, which is that tags are associated with stereotypes, and you'll need tags for {priority} and {stack}; but why not use plain «active»?). > Interest has been raised in UML/Ada recently Oh, where?