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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:3344:: with SMTP id
 k65-v6mr814049itk.10.1538060470247;
        Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6515:: with SMTP id i21-v6mr159098otl.0.1538060470020;
 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.215.MISMATCH!x188-v6no66656ite.0!news-out.google.com!z5-v6ni74ite.0!nntp.google.com!x98-v6no67344ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6632bf33-17aa-46f8-9ef7-f6e025eab3a4@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=73.205.150.94;
 posting-account=Ru7E4QoAAAC_HiQ2D8LjZ7rh1mbTNcVn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 73.205.150.94
References: <0956f152-7902-47cb-98e2-c6e5ba68b6b5@googlegroups.com>
 <6632bf33-17aa-46f8-9ef7-f6e025eab3a4@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <100214be-3866-4dd1-a8dd-c26ce97b52e3@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Code organization
From: NiGHTS <nights@unku.us>
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:01:10 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54443
Date: 2018-09-27T08:01:09-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:43:49 AM UTC-4, Shark8 wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:24:48 AM UTC-6, NiGHTS wrote:
> >=20
> > Any thoughts on this?
>=20
> Organizationally, I've been able to leverage SEPARATE and nested packages=
 to a fairly decent effect.
>=20
> As for the particular problem of the nested-task I don't think that would=
 work, although you /could/ make a generic package off of that internal tas=
k, using IN OUT formal parameters for the dependent state you're relying on=
... though I'm not sure that would make things easier, per se.

I had actually not used "separate" before. I read up on it and it's interes=
ting.

Does this only work on procedures declared in the package spec or can it wo=
rk for procedures declared in the body of another procedure or task?