From: firth@sei.cmu.edu
Subject: Child packages [nn,pedo,incest,cons
Date: 14 Oct 94 19:16 GMT+0300
Date: 1994-10-14T19:16:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1994Oct14.121611.22416@sei.cmu.e> (raw)
Subject: Child packages [nn,pedo,incest,cons]
In article <1994Oct14.094121@di.epfl.ch> Robb.Nebbe@di.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) writes:
>|> The private part and body of any child can access the private part of
>|> its parent (and grandparent...).
In principle, any mechanism that allows one to extend an abstraction
also allows one to break it. That's a hard choice for the language
designer to make.
However, let's remember that there are tools other than compilers,
and you don't have to rely on the compiler to enforce *all* your
good programming habits. It is still possible for an organsation
that prefers the Ada 83 style to prohibit the creation of child
packages, and this could be enforced by the development system,
just as specific local standards concerning Use clauses or Unchecked
Programming can be enforced.
next reply other threads:[~1994-10-14 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1994-10-14 16:16 firth [this message]
1994-10-14 14:13 ` Child packages [nn,pedo,incest,cons eachus
1994-10-16 23:54 ` Matt Kennel
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox