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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,cb04cee6116c8ced X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Package's private parts and protected types Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <7ff3810f-3ee3-4f39-a54c-933ad7d0655c@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com> <1v2la97s2yyvd.1rcy0ana8mver.dlg@40tude.net> <3bb38996-47f7-4f30-8255-f011501404b5@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:01:32 +0100 Message-ID: <1qttzk1jbh24i$.xid2h7me3oec.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Feb 2010 12:01:32 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 4ccdb201.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=2:8HITR;ni7enW;^6ZC`4IXm65S@:3>?<^ZLDQi2V:: X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8974 Date: 2010-02-08T12:01:32+01:00 List-Id: On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 02:54:17 -0800 (PST), Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) wrote: > On 8 f�v, 11:20, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" > wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 00:30:12 -0800 (PST), Martin wrote: >>> This is true of task types too. >> >> I don't think so. The task specification does not expose barriers and local >> variables of its body. But the protected type specification does its >> private operations and components: > I still think so :p > What about a task entry which should be accessible by some entities of > the package implementation ? I'm not talking about these task's > private entries intended for Requeue, I'm talking about an entry which > should be publicly available while still being available, not only > from the task itself, and also from the package body which hold the > task implementation. Yes, OK. Maybe it is not so offending as private components of a protected type, but you are right. "C++-ish" notation (wasn't it actually before C++?) poison is at work here as well. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de