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=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,baa6871d466e5af9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: AQ&S Guidance on pragma Elaborate_Body Date: 1997/04/26 Message-ID: <01bc5250$db1b6c00$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 237542558 References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk> <5jabeq$3ltk@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <5jfukp$lda@top.mitre.org> Organization: UUNet PIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet PIPEX) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew Heaney wrote in article ... > Knowing that tagged types are passed by reference, perhaps we could avoid a > spec dependency on the package containing a tagged type's declaration: > > with Q.T is tagged limited private; > package P is > > type S is private; > > procedure Op (OS : in out S; OT : in Q.T); -- OT is passed by reference > ... It's a nice idea. The problem with this idea, though (I think), is that there are no operations defined for Q.T for use in the body of procedure Op. What is Op able to do with the parameter OT? Anything? Nick. PS: If we had with Q.T is abstract tagged limited private; we could then derive from Q.T, add our own operations, and then use those operations (only). But would this ever be useful?