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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ad62d6b425bebfec X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: guerby@gnat.com (Laurent Guerby) Subject: Re: "use" clauses and Ada 95 OOP Date: 1996/07/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 170446573 sender: guerby@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu references: organization: New York University reply-to: guerby@gnat.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mitch> [...] Mitch> But my point is that a naive Ada 95 reader might think that the Mitch> call Mitch> pkg1.func(x) Mitch> calls the code that is in the body of pkg1. The syntax in fact Mitch> implies that strongly. [...] This notation implies that the specification is in pkg1, and the specification is the important thing, since it's here I'll find the documentation (no need to look at the body ;-). And for dispatching calls, finding the body can be done only at run-time most of the time. If surprising things can happen, better document it at the calling point. -- Laurent Guerby , Team Ada. "Use the Source, Luke. The Source will be with you, always (GPL)."