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: 103376,8b8748382fcfacc1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "John J. Rusnak" <john.rusnak@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: friend classes in ada95
Date: 2000/04/17
Message-ID: <38FBE174.9FCD06B7@mindspring.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 612536055
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38F6B617.34E216A7@emw.ericsson.se>
 <38F6D9F0.F0DE08E4@geocities.com> <8d7lqt$cgu$1@epos.tesco.net>
 <wcc8zygbioi.fsf@world.std.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
X-Server-Date: 18 Apr 2000 04:21:05 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-18T04:21:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Steve Folly" <steve.folly@mail.com> writes:
>
> > > package X.Y is
> > >     -- Cannot see X's private part
> >
> > Not true - according to the LRM (I forget which section off the top of my
> > head) child package visibility rules are the same as if you had declared (in
> > this case) Y inside X at the end of it's private part after all other
> > declarations.
>
> If you look up that section, you'll have trouble finding it.  ;-)
>
> The visible part of a child cannot see the parent's private part,
> unless it's a private child.
>
> - Bob

Under GNAT, I have made use of the fact that a child package can see its parent's
private part even if it is NOT a private child.  This could just be an error in
the compiler, though.  (I have seen this technique used for implementing
something simliar to "protected" elements in C++ or Java as well as friend
classes).

Does anyone have the section number?


-John