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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,93d7def3eeefbc26 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: danmcleran@hotmail.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Private area and child packages Date: 29 Dec 2004 07:10:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1104333056.340127.5170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1104293158.276241.42640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.140.232.151 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1104333060 3116 127.0.0.1 (29 Dec 2004 15:11:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:11:00 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=172.140.232.151; posting-account=LSix6gsAAACmBFWMCbh6syCaua0lawvj Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7291 Date: 2004-12-29T07:10:56-08:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org wrote: > How about renaming Some_Package.Child_Package to > Some_Package_Child_Package, ie, don't make it a child package. > The usual reason for making something a child package is to allow it > visibility into the parent, which is exactly what you don't want here. > So for what reason are you using the child package mechanism? What I was wondering was how someone writing Some_Package can enforce this on future package writers. I could obviously follow your suggestion if I am the only developer writing code for a project. But, if I want to hide implementation details from someone else who might write a child package, I would need some mechanism to enforce this information hiding.