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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,88e7ef9008757431
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Function Calls by Address
Date: 1999/09/03
Message-ID: <x7vzoz3aie7.fsf@pogner.moho>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 520970382
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
References: <37CADE68.6AF06F5D@escmail.orl.lmco.com>
 <37CEEFFA.7D73F78D@magic.fr> <7qooh7$hbh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <37CFFEA6.921CBE59@magic.fr>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 936446604 nnrp-07:9380 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
Organization: At Home
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 1999-09-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Francois Godme <fgodme@magic.fr> writes:

>                          By the same matter, who is still using the
> 'separate' construct for writing new applications?

We use this; there is a code generator, one part creates the
"structure" -- the packages and some of the bodies -- which is fairly
stable; the other creates the "active" part, which is more volatile
and which is implemented in 'separate' subprograms.

I have certainly used 'separate' in a different context (a nested
package, or perhaps it was a protected body. Anyway, it was again a
question of relative stability.

-- 
Simon Wright                        Work Email: simon.j.wright@gecm.com
Alenia Marconi Systems                         Voice: +44(0)1705-701778
Integrated Systems Division                      FAX: +44(0)1705-701800