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: 103376,4c17e6ae73bd8c51
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada and UML
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:44:09 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <m2fwxtnw1y.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <op.viarzhr2ule2fv@garhos> <op.viauftlrule2fv@garhos>
	<op.viawo1r3ule2fv@garhos>
	<e6746ed7-5984-431c-be85-bdc999fe0d0a@h19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<op.vibr57wyule2fv@garhos>
	<dd02ebde-76cf-4d79-8214-5059b121bc82@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 18:44:10 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="KCXegvZb5vh43D+f3BR6Ew";
	logging-data="18747"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+raDtBeN13KxbWibIwuyJ3nZRUqLNK8es="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C8Y2jj2iR9B7IuXvbM1e216zJ7U=
	sha1:wUEfo8+moZLA0ekAed5CVk4keM8=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13897
Date: 2010-09-01T19:44:09+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Matteo Bordin <matteo.bordin@gmail.com> writes:

> The core idea is that, by modeling your execution platform, you can
> "instruct" your code generator to generate code with a fully specified
> semantics for a precise target platform starting from an abstract
> model. This permits to re-use the same model for different target
> platforms by just changing code generator and platform model and to
> perform high-level verifications without including "pollution" from
> the underlying run-time.

I was going to draft a reply but Matteo has said almost all that I would
have done. I'd add that

1 I wouldn't expect every possible UML construct to be translatable
  using this model. A given vendor/toolset might well specify
  limitations, presumably as a profile.

2 I wouldn't expect to be able to tweak the UML so as to generate any
  arbitrary target language (Ada) construct.

3 The converse of 3: I wouldn't expect to be able to represent any
  arbitrary target language (Ada) program in UML so as to be able to
  regenerate it.