LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  April 1998

TEAM-ADA April 1998

Subject:

Re: WITHs per unit

From:

Mike Brenner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mike Brenner <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:09:04 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

Mike > ... add the WITHs up carefully ...

Alan & Carmel Brain > What about the use of renaming to package
                    > (a subset of the resources of) other packages
                    > into one logically related chunk?

Thanks for bringing this up.

I would count a renamed package as a package for the
maintenance metrics, because the maintenance programmer must
use tools to search for both names.

I think using renames to package stuff together and to hide
other stuff is a WONDERFUL technique of software reuse and I
use it a lot.

The problem with renamings of packages is that they only rename
the visible part. The biggest configuration management weakness
is the Ada language is the lack of method of renaming a package body.

By renaming the package spec and body together, as Ada permits,
the programmer is forced to duplicate the package spec for each
package body. This causes a lack of integrity in the copied
package spec because a change in one might not propogate to the others,
and worse: a change in one might not be tested against the others.

Ada-95 introduced a way to have multiple GENERIC package bodies
through abstraction, but not a way to have multiple NONGENERIC
package bodies.

An alternative that would solve the same problem would be a way
to pass a NONGENERIC package as a parameter to a generic package,
which would be the moral equivalent of renaming the package
body, because the compiler would enforce the absolute identity
of the package specification's non-private part.

Another weakness of requiring renamings to work only on the
spec/body combined is that the body might have things in it
that do NOT compile or link on other versions. For example,
the body of one might have the statements:
   TYPE EXACTS is range 1 .. 2**33; -- might exceed

This would cause compilation problems for certain targets which
would declare TYPE EXACTS differently. So you CANNOT just
compile all the different bodies and rename the one you wish,
since some of them will not compile.

Actually, in my experience, most of them will not compile,
because the reason for having multiple backends is specifically
operating system or compile dependencies. That is, things
which were not standardized in the Ada-95 manual, such as
bit lengths, bit orderings, pragma availability, package
availability, access to absolute memory, when things are
guaranteed to be elaborable, and how to read directories,
ports, memory locations, different methods of converting
addresses to integers, etc.

Link errors come from pragma interfaces that do not exist,
calling procedures and functions that are available on one
system only, lack of standardization of what is guaranteed to
elaborate, and changes in names for operating system interfaces.

However, whenever it is applicable, RENAMES can be a very powerful
tool to permit resue of code.

One of the most powerful tools is renaming of default values.
For example, a CHICKEN package gives a set of defaults for
various function formal parameters. The RED_EGG package
fills in one set of defaults and provides these as a VIEW of
the chicken to the user. The BLUE_EGG package fills in a different
set of defaults.

Taken to its limit, it is common practice to use this RENAMING
of DEFAULTS to change an ADT to and ADO. Just implement the ADT
as a PURE package with a limited private type. Then implement
the ADO as a package which declares one object of that limited
private type, initializes it, and RENAMES each of the
procedures and functions in the ADT package to fill in that
object which it just declared. The user then effectively
declares one object per instantiation of the ADO package.
The lack of initialization in the ADT prevents caual misuse of it.

The weakness of using RENAMES to change ADTs to ADOs is that the
instantiated objects cannot be put into an array. This is the
old Packages Are Not First Class Objects argument. (As a reminder,
the Packages Are Not Second Class Objects either argument is
used above: nongeneric packages cannot be passed as parameters
to generic packages). My opinion is that Ada 200X should make
packages second class objects, but not first class objects.

Mike Brenner

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager