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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,baa6871d466e5af9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: AQ&S Guidance on pragma Elaborate_Body Date: 1997/04/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 237631763 References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk> <5jabeq$3ltk@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <5jfukp$lda@top.mitre.org> <01bc5250$db1b6c00$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <01bc5250$db1b6c00$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>, "Nick Roberts" wrote: >> Knowing that tagged types are passed by reference, perhaps we could avoid >a >> spec dependency on the package containing a tagged type's declaration: >> >> with Q.T is tagged limited private; >> package P is >> >> type S is private; >> >> procedure Op (OS : in out S; OT : in Q.T); -- OT is passed by >reference >> ... > > >It's a nice idea. The problem with this idea, though (I think), is that >there are no operations defined for Q.T for use in the body of procedure >Op. What is Op able to do with the parameter OT? Anything? I said "avoid a __spec__ dependency." Of course, a with of package Q by the body of P is required. We're trying to make specs less sensitive to changes in the packages is withs, to reduce the ripple-effect in a large system (because the library units that with P would have to be (potentially) checked, and so on). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271