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: 103376,8591be732d0fce98
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada OOP alternatives?
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:50:31 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcck5fk1mlk.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <462e0cf4-1d53-4918-b30b-dd3d8df90f1b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wcctzeq7khi.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <487d9636$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <6e5uq2F5g7n6U2@mid.individual.net> <wcciqv56hxs.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <C4A3F84E.F1922%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <wcc3am9gytt.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <C4A45457.F19F4%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <wccy741fg0z.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <18maowv5tf52i$.winpalz4hj7p$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1216313431 718 192.74.137.71 (17 Jul 2008 16:50:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:50:31 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PA4kcMWxmQCtzRhwVMwjuJfm1b0=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1197
Date: 2008-07-17T12:50:31-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:36:28 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:
>
>> So it's clearly feasible to have information in bodies used
>> when compiling clients.
>
> It is feasible, but makes little sense. Why there should be bodies
> then?

I think you mean, "Why there should be specs then?".  ;-)

> What is the property of a body the specification does not have, and
> reverse?
>
> In other words, provided the compiler could not compile specifications
> without bodies, why the code reader/maintainer should be able to do this?

I want separate specs and bodies, not for the compiler's benefit, but
for the programmer's benefit.  I want to be able to read a concise spec,
without having to wade through the entire body.

The compiler should check legality without looking at other bodies.  But
it should look at bodies when generating code (at least if optimization
is turned on).

- Bob