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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a8985ede8fe3d111
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-16 22:26:00 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!firth
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Child packages [nn,pedo,incest,cons]
Message-ID: <1994Oct14.121611.22416@sei.cmu.edu>
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu (Netnews)
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
References: <1994Oct4.090807@di.epfl.ch> <37kanl$jfd@u.cc.utah.edu>
 <1994Oct14.094121@di.epfl.ch>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 12:16:11 EDT
Date: 1994-10-14T12:16:11-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.