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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,cb04cee6116c8ced
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Package's private parts and protected types
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 02:54:17 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <3bb38996-47f7-4f30-8255-f011501404b5@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <7ff3810f-3ee3-4f39-a54c-933ad7d0655c@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
	<e89844fd-9f16-40a1-821a-177d4f02caf4@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<1v2la97s2yyvd.1rcy0ana8mver.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.66.190.226
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265626457 27467 127.0.0.1 (8 Feb 2010 10:54:17
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:54:17 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.66.190.226;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8972
Date: 2010-02-08T02:54:17-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 8 f=E9v, 11:20, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 00:30:12 -0800 (PST), Martin wrote:
> > This is true of task types too.
>
> I don't think so. The task specification does not expose barriers and loc=
al
> variables of its body. But the protected type specification does its
> private operations and components:
I still think so :p
What about a task entry which should be accessible by some entities of
the package implementation ? I'm not talking about these task's
private entries intended for Requeue, I'm talking about an entry which
should be publicly available while still being available, not only
from the task itself, and also from the package body which hold the
task implementation.

> Obviously to me, the syntax should have been like:
>
> =A0 =A0type T is protected private; -- or "protected with private"
> =A0 =A0entry Foo (X : in out T);
> =A0 =A0function Bar (X : T) return Boolean;
> private
> =A0 =A0type T is protected record
> =A0 =A0 =A0 ...
So, with absolute majority, the Gang Of Three voted there is a flaw
here

Yes, I would have enjoyed too a "protected [with] private".

> =A0 =A0end T; =A0-- I don't like "end record" either.
This makes me remind I will have to later reply to another thread
where you also talking about some other stuff you don't like