Re: Mut. Recurs. in Ada9X w/o Breaking Encaps.? (LONG)

[andrewl@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Andrew Lees)]

This discussion has led me to wonder if the source of the problem is
a clash between the desire to have "one package = one type" and the
essential structure of the problem being discussed.  This may appear
a little meta-physical, but I wonder if the relationship between
employee and office is not _core_ to the definition of employee, and
similarly for office (at least in the context of this problem ).
If this is the case, then
having the definitions of office and employee separate is itself
part of the problem - at an essential level they are not separate.

A possible solution recognising the intertwined nature of the two types
may be to have the office and employee identifiers (= access types)
defined in a single package as private types with their structure
left to the body.  This common package has nothing else, or may have
common employee-office operations.  The separate employee and office
operations are then defined in child packages, which can re-export the
associated indentifier type for those clients who are interested solely
in "employee" or "office" things, and do not wish to concern themslves
about the combined aspects.

I'm not sure if this is directly related to what was intended, but there
are certainly cases where this type of solution is required.

Andy Lees.