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: 1994-10-24 21:34:24 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!dinews.epfl.ch!di.epfl.ch!Robb.Nebbe From: Robb.Nebbe@di.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Child packages Date: 18 Oct 1994 10:30:19 GMT Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Sender: nebbe@lglsun3.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) Distribution: world Message-ID: <1994Oct18.103131@di.epfl.ch> References: <1994Oct4.090807@di.epfl.ch> <37kanl$jfd@u.cc.utah.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lglsun3.epfl.ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: 1994-10-18T10:30:19+00:00 List-Id: In article , eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: |> In article <1994Oct17.091621@di.epfl.ch> Robb.Nebbe@di.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) writes: |> |> > But you have to want to shoot yourself in the foot. I would think it |> > would be almost impossible to "accidently" declare a child package |> > and muck around with private information. |> |> Never underestimate stupidity, you can't overestimate it. |> |> "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain." Schiller(sp?) |> |> You have to know why it is a bad thing. There are no warning signs |> posted. And I don't expect people to spend lots of effort adding |> comments to package specifications explaining what catastrophes can be |> created by illegitimate children. |> It is sort of like a rail at the edge of a cliff to keep people from falling off. Something simple is sufficient but if you want to worry about all the really stupid people then maybe you should put up a 12 foot high barier in plexiglass or something. I think that would really enhance places like the Grand Canyon. :-) I find that child packages make my code safer. They frequently replace things like unchecked conversion where I know that it will always work but I couldn't get Ada83 to check it without giving up information hiding. I feel a little safer knowing that the compiler can check everything and that some accidental error didn't slip in when I had to use unchecked conversion. As far as illegitemate child packages I find that there are plenty of warning signs along the way. To write a child package you have to preference the package name with the name of the parent(s). When you with the package you have to give the full name including the parent(s). I don't buy the arguement that a stupid programmer might declare a child package by accident. That a programmer might do something wrong on purpose seems more like paranoia than anything worth getting concerned about. A version control system seems like a much better place to worry about who can do what to which packages. - Robb Nebbe