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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!software.org!stluka From: stluka@software.org (Fred Stluka) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Use of "is separate" and compilatio Message-ID: <1638@sunny.software.org> Date: 7 Dec 89 23:32:21 GMT References: <20600021@inmet> <3076@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <60@array.UUCP> Sender: usenet@software.org Reply-To: stluka@software.org (Fred Stluka) Organization: Software Productivity Consortium, Herndon, Virginia List-Id: In article <60@array.UUCP> len@array.UUCP (Leonard Vanek) writes: > If "proper name scoping" is used to avoid the potential pitfalls of > subunits, how does the subunit differ substantially from a package? > I think that the alternative to subunits in this case is not to place > them in-line in the parent procedure or package, but to make them > packages in their own right. Why do we need to use the "is separate" > mechanism? Subunits are similar to library units in being allowed to have "with" clauses. However, they are different in not being able to be "with"ed by other units. They are visible only to their parents. Subunits are the only choice when you want to only a small portion of a large package to have visibility into other library units without allowing other units to have visibility into the small portion. --Fred -- Fred Stluka CSNET: stluka@software.org Software Productivity Consortium ARPANET: stluka%software.org@RELAY.CS.NET 2214 Rock Hill Rd, Herndon VA 22070 UUNET: ...!uunet!sunny!stluka