TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:32:16 -0500
text/plain (31 lines)
Mike Brenner wrote:
> 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.

In any given compilation, you can only have one body per spec.  It
makes no sense to talk about renaming the body separately, or about
renaming the body at all: other units can't even SEE the body.

I'm not sure I have even a faint clue what you're talking about,
but my guess is that you're talking about having multiple bodies
for the same spec, e.g. to select a body based on what target
you're on.  This is done outside the language in Ada, e.g. by
selection of what file (containing a body) you will compile.

Can you give a short example of what you are talking about?

Sam Mize

Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] (home email) -- Team Ada
Multi-part MIME message: " ", " ", " " (hands waving)
Fight Spam - see