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 10.236.185.226 with SMTP id u62mr11216749yhm.3.1344998912497;
        Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 c6ni111242888qas.0!nntp.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:26:50 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m28vdmzutx.fsf@nidhoggr.home>
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$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
	<m2hasf10nc.fsf@nidhoggr.home> <k01du7$lvn$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="edf2659fbb8cb6d4b5f62db4b36ac1e6";
	logging-data="17326"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+smtkwwBBsrRYW9eeIYsMIX7O+Zs2cT90="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+p8jThm2KW59FVs2XEF0uH0BmoY=
	sha1:MvY1hxCRexf3ehdl5EYeOItKkRY=
X-Received-Bytes: 2187
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2012-08-10T15:26:50+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> "Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
> news:m2hasf10nc.fsf@nidhoggr.home...
> ...
>> Completely agree. We found (on powerpc-wrs-vxworks) that globally
>> inlining access subprograms (to return/update the value of a component
>> declared in a private part) increased the size and slowed the code. No
>> metrics, sorry.
>
> OT: I usually call those sorts of subprograms "accessors" in order to reduce 
> confusion with "access types" in Ada. I had to read your message several 
> times to figure out what you meant.

As I think I may have said, we marked these subprograms <<accessor>> in
the UML, which goes to prove your point. Thanks.