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: 103376,8591be732d0fce98
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!inka.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng1.kpn.DE!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ada OOP alternatives?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <462e0cf4-1d53-4918-b30b-dd3d8df90f1b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
  <wcctzeq7khi.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <487d9636$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <6e5uq2F5g7n6U2@mid.individual.net> <wcciqv56hxs.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <C4A3F84E.F1922%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <wcc3am9gytt.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <C4A45457.F19F4%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <wccy741fg0z.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <c721e61c-464a-4ace-8aa8-7b051794fa7c@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:56:00 +0200
Message-ID: <1y046u74vmwh3.19jm2fcdx5xpt.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Jul 2008 09:56:00 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 06425155.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=0kmG6RlggW4lIh70@<QIE7McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR1nkgeX?EC@@06lE8jCGPIA9[6LHn;2LCV>7enW;^6ZC`4IXm65S@:3>?dEZKHC6CHb7
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7003
Date: 2008-07-23T09:56:00+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:

> This would make
> it possible to dispense with private parts and put all of the
> "private" stuff into package bodies.

Hmm, I would consider private declarations rather as a private interface.

It is quite common that things are implemented incrementally, with children
packages encapsulating the increments. In effect a huge "private land"
stretches between pure specifications and pure implementations. It is
difficult to invent something instead. I remember how awkward it was in Ada
83. Removing private interfaces would mean a sort of monolithic all-at-once
design. How are you going to handle that?

In the rest I agree with you. Further, I would like to see a support for a
kind of "non-cooperative model of visibility." By this I mean the linker or
what else would be used instead, to map the private stuff read-only, in the
contexts where only public view is available. I.e. "non-visibility rules"
enforced by memory mapping.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de