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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f57aba5273502edf
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.204.149.210 with SMTP id u18mr1149740bkv.1.1335962285951;
        Wed, 02 May 2012 05:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 h15ni190273bkw.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Natasha Kerensikova <lithiumcat@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: bindings with Ada 2012 aspects
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 12:38:05 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <slrnjq2ake.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
References: <jn7egd$scs$1@munin.nbi.dk> <jna9f5$tn1$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 12:38:05 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="Mda950WjNwNLAFOE7yJXQw";
	logging-data="30570"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18R8xFlEJ9H/Sb+4DHPEJrm"
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:A/3TOTmauNgY9VfLzYMljO+2VVo=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-05-02T12:38:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello,

On 2012-04-26, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> No language-defined aspects are allowed on renames, and the above is a 
> renames.
>
> The reason is that almost all language-defined aspects are the same for all 
> views of an entity, and a rename just introduces another view. Moreover, 
> this renames "trick" exists for pragmas simply to get around the limitations 
> of pragmas for overloaded entities, something that is totally unnecessary 
> for aspects.

I'm sorry to derail this thread a bit, but this interesting description
of renames makes we wonder even more why they are needed for public
subprograms implemented by generic instantiation. Like the following:

package Foo;

   procedure Bar (Arg_1 : in out Type_1; Arg_2 : in Type_2);

end Foo;

package body Foo

   generic
      type Formal_Type;
      with procedure Do_Stuff (Arg_2 : in Type_2);
   procedure Generic_Bar (Arg_1 : in out Formal_Type; Arg_2 : in Type_2);

   procedure Bar_Instance is new Generic_Bar (Type_1, Do_Real_Stuff);

   procedure Bar (Arg_1 : in out Type_1; Arg_2 : in Type_2)
      renames Bar_Instance;

end Foo;


What is so special about "just [introducing] another view" that cannot
be achieved by the more direct code below?

   procedure Bar is new Generic_Bar (Type_1, Do_Real_Stuff);



Thanks for your insights,
Natasha