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 10.66.85.231 with SMTP id k7mr1861828paz.38.1344325282922;
        Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 g9ni2545pbo.0!nntp.google.com!npeer03.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!ctu-peer!ctu-gate!news.nctu.edu.tw!usenet.stanford.edu!panix!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:07:28 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc4noj4zof.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <e416cb92-6ec8-4514-8fa9-c35d6432b117@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1344017248 15282 192.74.137.71 (3 Aug 2012 18:07:28
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:07:28 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TDsKrpZQXFEP3rqvCe/BdNXTqK0=
X-Received-Bytes: 2731
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2012-08-03T14:07:28-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:

> # I don't believe that either Inline or Import should be hidden in the private
> # part, because both have (subtle) semantic effects that potentially break
> # privacy. In particular, inline adds dependencies that might make linking a
> # program impossible.

I don't think that's right.  Inline doesn't add dependencies.

>...(I don't think inline should be allowed to do that,
> # either, but that's the way it is.)

I don't think inline should be allowed to do that, either
-- fortunately, that's not the way it is.  ;-)

If you (Randy) don't agree, please quote chapter&verse.

I just tried the following example, which has mutually-recursive
inlining, and gnat didn't have any trouble compiling it or
linking it.  I think that's required -- a compiler would be
wrong to say this example is illegal.

  package P1 is
     procedure Proc1 with Inline;
     procedure Proc2 with Inline;
  end P1;

  with Text_IO; use Text_IO;
  with P2;
  package body P1 is
     procedure Proc1 is
     begin
        Put_Line ("Proc1");
     end Proc1;

     procedure Proc2 is
     begin
        P2.Proc2;
     end Proc2;
  end P1;

  package P2 is
     procedure Proc1 with Inline;
     procedure Proc2 with Inline;
  end P2;

  with Text_IO; use Text_IO;
  with P1;
  package body P2 is
     procedure Proc1 is
     begin
        P1.Proc1;
     end Proc1;

     procedure Proc2 is
     begin
        Put_Line ("Proc2");
     end Proc2;
  end P2;

  with P1, P2;
  procedure Main is
  begin
     P1.Proc2;
     P2.Proc1;
  end Main;

- Bob