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: 103376,5394d9ca5f955366 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) Subject: Re: pointers & OOP Date: 1999/05/06 Message-ID: <3731fa3d.12295232@news.pacbell.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 474885415 References: <$DL10CAsSgL3Iwj3@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk> <7gn7gr$fr5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3731d200.1993345@news.pacbell.net> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net 926022455 207.214.211.168 (Thu, 06 May 1999 13:27:35 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 13:27:35 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >Use parent-child structuring. Internal_Updating is a protected >operation. I would still consider this to be a one to one mapping, >although I don't use parent-child packages unless I have to. If you'll allow child packages as "separate packages" it certainly makes "1-1 packages/classes" a lot less draconian. OTOH, suppose you really wanted procedure Internal_Updating to be visible to Son and Daughter but *absolutely not* to any other package masquerading as Parent.Prodigal_Son. Then you'd be forced to put Son and Daughter inside the same package as Root (unless you went to a lot of trouble with "doorman" routines).