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,b8b8a54001adc4d2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:14:00 -0600 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1104516913.718856.94090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1104544963.930877.75170@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1104595073.731663.180100@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Possible Ada deficiency? Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:15:37 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-eOvXFGZguXLE2E4CLH6qbD5Txg9el5p1AHZFwZwrqr0DPwjaxIspQEks5O072gQy2WO2M4reE9kmmgJ!geB/V38e3suSd6Bar76KI7Z8pCp1OakklaIaNq4jh72j4xvZaGrw8ciT0yimGcp1aMlqDCwgyqOG X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.22 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7617 Date: 2005-01-10T14:15:37-06:00 List-Id: "Robert A Duff" wrote in message news:wccwtun9481.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... ... > So I guess the Ada 83 designers invented the private part so the > compiler wouldn't have to look at the body to generate efficient code. > But the compiler has to look at the body anyway, in order to implement > generics (unless they are always code-shared) and pragmas Inline. > So the decision seems somewhat inconsistent to me. I viewed the intent of the Ada 83 design to be exactly that: no looking at the body is required. Generics should be shared, inline is a hint and the dependencies need not (and should not) be used. Do any inlining/macro expansion at link-time. Certainly I wasn't the only one who thought that was the intent. Machines of the era weren't really powerful enough to implement that intent, thus the hacks of the generic dependency and the inline dependency were allowed. Of course, Ada 95 came along and changed that intent. Which is too bad, as machines now are powerful enough to implement the Ada 83 intent! Randy Brukardt