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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,58f5085c2edafcfe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: kevin  cline <kevin.cline@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Design - cyclic dependencies
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:16:43 -0000
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1193869003.239741.196820@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
References: <1193401560.389194.282030@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.107.191.217
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1193869003 26882 127.0.0.1 (31 Oct 2007 22:16:43
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:16:43 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1193401560.389194.282030@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.8) Gecko/20071008 Firefox/2.0.0.8,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=167.107.191.217;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2687
Date: 2007-10-31T22:16:43+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 26, 7:26 am, Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider:
>
> --  a.ads:
> package A is
>    type T is new Integer;
>    procedure P;
> end A;
>
> --  a.adb:
> with B;
> package body A is
>    procedure P is
>       X : T;
>    begin
>       B.P (X);
>    end P;
> end A;
>
> --  b.ads:
> with A;
> package B is
>    procedure P (X : A.T);
> end B;
>
> --  b.adb:
> package body B is
>    procedure P (X : A.T) is
>    begin
>       null;
>    end P;
> end B;
>
> There are two logical modules A and B, implemented as packages.
> There is no cyclic dependency between the specifications of these
> packages and the code is legal.
> Still, there is a design-level cyclic dependency between the whole
> modules in the sense that A depends on B (A calls some operation of B)
> and that B depends on A (B uses some type from A).
>
> Being legal does not imply being good and therefore I ask: do you
> consider this kind of design-level cyclic dependency to be acceptable?

I have no idea what you mean by 'logical module' or 'design-level
cyclic dependency'.  But circular package dependencies are never
acceptable to me.  I would either combine A and B into a single
package, or else break the circularity by moving T into B.