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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b5b75c5bf3ae7291 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-12 18:32:41 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!wdl1!dst17!mab From: mab@dst17.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar) Subject: Re: Implement Inheritance (Ada83)? Message-ID: <1995Mar13.022701.11013@wdl.loral.com> Sender: news@wdl.loral.com Organization: Loral Western Development Labs References: <3jiala$kqs@explorer.csc.com> <3jp6h3$p2t@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 02:27:01 GMT Date: 1995-03-13T02:27:01+00:00 List-Id: In article <3jp6h3$p2t@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> ucaa2385@iris2.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de (Peter Hermann) writes: >William Brennan (brennan@panther.warm.inmet.com) wrote: >: Almost all of the packages I have written over the past 5 years use >: private types for data abstraction. I have regularly seen occurences where >: some maintainer would come by, figure he/she didn't have immediate >: enough access to the type and move it into the visible part of the spec, >: breaking the encapsulation, of course. One can hear them muttering under >: their breath: "What's this _private_ stuff for anyway, it's only getting in >: my way!" >Most of the "need"s to do this will vanish with the >appearance of child packages, imho. Besides anyone that let such a code change pass a formal inspection should be shot. What? Your not doing formal inspections? Then your QA group should be shot. -- Mark Biggar mab@wdl.loral.com