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: Vincent Marciante Subject: Re: friend classes in ada95 Date: 2000/04/18 Message-ID: <38FC97AC.3968@li.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 612760259 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <38F6B617.34E216A7@emw.ericsson.se> <38F6D9F0.F0DE08E4@geocities.com> <8d7lqt$cgu$1@epos.tesco.net> <38FBE174.9FCD06B7@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: nuq-read.news.verio.net 956078012 209.139.0.85 (Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:13:32 GMT) Organization: Verio MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:13:32 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John J. Rusnak wrote: > > Robert A Duff wrote: > > 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. Is the _visible_ (non-private) part of the non-private child seeing the parent's private part? That would be a defect in the compiler. > 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? No section says it because it is wrong - that is the joke. Check out http://www.adapower.com/rationale/rat95-p1-2.html#8 > > -John