Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?

["Vasiliy Molostov" <molostoff@gmail.com>]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> писал(а) в своём письме Tue,  
07 Aug 2012 17:41:05 +0400:

> On 07.08.12 15:09, Vasiliy Molostov wrote:
>> Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> писал(а) в своём письме  
>> Tue, 07
>> Aug 2012 13:33:21 +0400:
>
> Premise 1: The reader is the only important person in Ada programming.
> Premise 2: The reader wishes to learn from a package spec how to write
> a call statement (essential knowledge: profile, contract, exceptions).
> ====
> Conclusion: Anything that does not answer the reader's questions as  
> stated
> in premise 2 is in excess of what is needed, in general, and not  
> beneficial.

I am the reader who wants to know from reading entity about all its  
properties, *while reading entity* . Since properties and a common name  
for them define entity.
pragmas placed along with such a entity gives me a way to obtain  
properties in one reading pass, e.g. as a part of entity.

pragmas being placed separately from entity breaks context and enforce  
reading two times more. In this case a reader have to ensure that a  
separated property is indeed the same one corresponding to what was  
specified before (a public subprogram spec), to match it exactly as  
possible, since additions in the public part with a new subprogram of the  
same name cause rewrite of other parts not related to that is added  
(should be concreted, since context in which first entity was defined  
becomes broken with separation).

> and it takes time to sort
> out which aspects are essential (influence the program's
> output) and which aspects aren't.

You are right here, and potentially there should be a way to setup these  
things as mandatory for the design and as a caller's appliance  
configuration.


-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/