TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:43:04 -0600
Reply-To: Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> from "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" at Nov 25, 98 01:52:30 pm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (34 lines)
W. Wesley Groleau x4923 wrote:
> In situations where that paradigm truly is meaningful, nothing stops you from
> defining

Nothing helps you ensure you remembered to do so consistently, either.

> I think new pragmas to enforce a particular non-Ada-like style are not
> wise.  If it takes three pragmas to do it, and three for the next guy's
> non-Ada-like style, and three for the next style idea, and ....
> Better to just write an ASIS tool (or employ a very talented proofreader)
> that suits your needs.

I'm game.  How does the programmer tell the ASIS tool "this is one
of those things for which I want you to check class purity" (or
data-flow-design constraints, or no-nested-procedures, or whatever).

Is there a mechanism other than pragma?

Does ASIS retain comments so you can parse them?

I'm not tied to pragmas, I'm just looking for a mechanism that will
let an ASIS tool pick and choose where it should apply these
constraints.  They certainly shouldn't be mandated across the
board, that would be sillier than outlawing all "use" statements.

Sam Mize

Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see \\\ Smert Spamonam