Re: Ada202X: Easy to use "UML private"-like components

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

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

> ... or there should be no generics.
>
> The kludge here rather is generics and inlining, both basically are macro
> expansions.

Semantics defined by macro-expansion is confusing, and should be
avoided.  I'd prefer to have generic types rather than generic
packages, and don't use macro-expansion semantics.  Eiffel shows
one way to do this.

Inlining, on the other hand, has no semantics.  Or should have none.
And it can be turned off when you want faster recompiles but slower
run time.  And inlining is inherently a macro expansion.

> To have public and private parts of the specifications makes much sense to
> me, as well as to have bodies which are not allowed for looking into (e.g.
> for shared libraries, remote objects etc).

Well, yeah, you can't very well inline across shared libraries, but I
don't see any need for that to be part of the language syntax.

- Bob