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: 103376,18f6de557e6897b2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Re: circular unit dependency Date: 1997/06/03 Message-ID: <33942317.2BCD@pseserv6.fw.hac.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 245817530 Sender: usenet@most.fw.hac.com (News Administration) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: sparc02 References: <3386d96f.171920@noticias.ibernet.es> <9A7E8196B8D7EE83.E6C868B798076E45.6F1AD9E8B3E01F66@library-proxy.airnews.net> <33932F31.4399@sprintmail.com> Organization: Hughes Defense Communications Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew: Did you read John's treatise? It presents a _reasonable_ example of two types that 1. do not depend on each other, 2. have _no_ particular reason for co-encapsulation of abstraction, except... 3. have subprograms that must refer to the other type. John, Your example is reasonable, and a solution would be a good thing, but the problem is not a disaster. I can only remember once in over ten years that I wished I could separately package two types but couldn't. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be Don't send me your advertisements! I'll proofread and return them for $50.00 (US) per hundred words (plus a small fee per correction). ----------------------------------------------------------------------