Re: "private with" proposal

[Vincent Marciante <INVALID_EXCEPT_FOR_marciant@earthlink.net>]

"David C. Hoos, Sr." wrote:
> 
> "Vincent Marciante" <INALID_EXCEPT_FOR_marciant@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message news:3DE66447.2D6@earthlink.net...
> > "with private" is a proposed addition to Ada; see
> > http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00262.TXT?rev=1.13
> >
> > I do not understand why the extra syntax (adding "private" to
> > the context clause) is necessary.
  
<snip>

> As I understand the proposal, "with private" would allow the
> unit to be referenced only in the private part of the specification
> (and in its body) regardless of whether the privately "withed"
> unit is private or public.
> David

Yes, I get that from reading the proposal.  But the extra syntax 
couldn't be any real benifit.   I mean one would still be able to
plain old "with" a (non-private) unit even if it was only utilized
in the private part.  So, I don't buy the "documents the not for export"
_guideline_ benifit when dealing with non-private units that are 
allowed to be withed by but are not allowed to be exported by a unit.

--
Vinny