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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why .ads as well as .adb?
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2019 14:41:06 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Message-ID: <ln1s03sqkt.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <28facad3-c55f-4ef2-8ef8-004925b7d1f1@googlegroups.com>
	<qcvqut$ejh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
	<dbbcf7b1-091f-4c87-b2b1-021bb9503b70@googlegroups.com>
	<qd2krk$pin$1@gioia.aioe.org>
	<f37f6f75-62d4-4152-917e-d666d67f6cb7@googlegroups.com>
	<qd6rb8$hl7$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
	<a902e41a-729d-4c00-8e3f-0cda1822a349@googlegroups.com>
	<qd81gq$aej$1@dont-email.me> <87woi0xtwm.fsf@nightsong.com>
	<glpiqeFt9jqU1@mid.individual.net>
	<f611bdb8-5a40-48bd-afe5-17de72bbe193@googlegroups.com>
	<glq1rpF1v52U1@mid.individual.net>
	<4a0438de-1f1d-4469-aae4-908854d378ea@googlegroups.com>
	<qdbvth$3db$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
	<47d02bdc-6b50-43aa-bc5d-bb5b6225f5bd@googlegroups.com>
	<455333f0-ede4-4833-900a-240a499395ac@googlegroups.com>
	<875zphvufc.fsf@nightsong.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="2f9c4eb257206e8a03efe69db2d64894";
	logging-data="30577"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7xB0YkW97dU5vZ3oRmvLm"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2zKS61HSEq01IXp+PcX4yfNuLJA=
	sha1:qY0ByNHYMpNXbOY9bTZXtOpObxo=
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56567
Date: 2019-06-08T14:41:06-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
> Brad Moore <bmoore.ada@gmail.com> writes:
>> I think it is a big mistake of languages that encourage the
>> specification and implementation to be in the same source file, and
>> very surprised to see that anyone would be arguing for that.
>
> That seems like saying it's a mistake for math textbooks to be published
> as single volumes.  The text should instead be done in 2 volumes, with
> the statements of the theorems in the first volume, and the proofs in
> the second.  In practice I don't know of any math textbooks published
> that way.  There are some multi-volume ones, but they all still go:
> theorem, proof, theorem, proof.

Math textbooks have a table of contents and an index.  Both *could* be
in separate volumes, but there would be no particular advantage in that
(though it's entirely possible that the author kept them in separate
files).

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */