Re: Aspect location in expression function.

["G.B." <bauhaus@notmyhomepage.invalid>]

On 24.05.22 06:05, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> To the OP: we discussed placement of aspect specifications ad-nausem, as
> issues like this always were coming up. There is no consistent rule that
> really works well, because one does not want small things following large
> sets of aspect specs -- they can get lost and overlooked.
> 
> For instance, one puts aspect specifications after "is abstract" as
> otherwise that could be lost after a lengthy precondition expression (and
> it's too important to be lost).

Isn't this emphasis on "is abstract" loosing the very point of abstraction?

> See how that could happen in the following
> (illegal) declaration:
> 
>      procedure P (A, B ,,,)
>         with Pre => <very long expression that extends over several lines
> here>
>         is abstract;

Who cares to see "is abstract" if P is in a spec?
The implementer, I guess, but the client? Less so.