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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8bb81cae35ee307f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken & Virginia Garlington <redhawk@flash.net>
Subject: Re: Package Parts [was: Ada GC and a bunch of other stuff]
Date: 1996/02/18
Message-ID: <31273ED6.B9B@flash.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 139905038
references: <NEWTNews.824443067.649.geneo@medusa.ppp.rational.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Redhawk Kennels
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-02-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Norman H. Cohen <ncohen@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> Here is a half-baked proposal for Ada 0X: Allow a package to consist
> of a sequence of compilation units of the form
>
>    "package" name "(" expression "of" expression ")" "is"
>       { declaration }
>    [ "private "
>       { declaration }
>    [ "begin"
>       handled_sequence_of_statements ]
>    "end" name "(" expression "of" expression ")" ";"

I missed the post describing the rationale for this proposal; could
some one repost it?

I have one question which may have already been answered. If you
have a package in five parts, as in the original example, would you
ever add a sixth part? If so, having to change all the other package
names would seem to be counter-productive from a maintenance standpoint.