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: 103376,3d9acd0750841603
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Gerd" <GerdM.O@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How to hide type internals
Date: 4 Jul 2006 04:11:52 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1152011512.798125.301120@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <1151664636.528401.15590@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
   <uu060rpyh.fsf@nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.159.113.204
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1152011517 31204 127.0.0.1 (4 Jul 2006 11:11:57
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 11:11:57 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <uu060rpyh.fsf@nasa.gov>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=62.159.113.204;
   posting-account=_FaVAg0AAAAYUPoPAQYNRFF35JBHf9i7
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5472
Date: 2006-07-04T04:11:52-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Stephen Leake schrieb:

> "Gerd" <GerdM.O@t-online.de> writes:
>
> > I would like to write a package that exports functions using a special
> > type, without showing the details in the spec (even not in the private
> > part).
>
> Others have shown how to do this.
>
> But I'd like to understand _why_ you want to do this.

There are at least two reasons:

If the definition is left to the body, a change of the definition needs
only a recompilation of the body. If the full type is declared within
the spec, you would have to recompile .all. packages that "with" this
spec. Otherwise it would be enough to provide a compiled object-file
with the spec.

First this is a question of compile time (large system), second this
would give the contractor a look into your internals. The first is a
simple thing of money, the second is a security decision (e.g. if the
"user" of this package has no clearance).