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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d927b7ea9b65580a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-28 20:28:13 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3DE6ECCB.650C4DCF@earthlink.net> From: Vincent Marciante X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (OS/2; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: "private with" proposal References: <3dccc023$0$304$bed64819@news.gradwell.net> <3DD847CD.A3D78EE9@adaworks.com> <3DE5F0BB.E7D21384@brighton.ac.uk> <3DE66447.2D6@earthlink.net> <3de678c9$1_7@nopics.sjc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 04:28:12 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.185.176.51 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1038544092 63.185.176.51 (Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:28:12 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:28:12 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31304 Date: 2002-11-29T04:28:12+00:00 List-Id: "David C. Hoos, Sr." wrote: > > "Vincent Marciante" 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. > 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