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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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 12:13:02 PST
Reply-To: "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
From: "David C. Hoos, Sr." <dhoossr@telocity.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <3dccc023$0$304$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>
 <3DD847CD.A3D78EE9@adaworks.com> <3DE5F0BB.E7D21384@brighton.ac.uk>
 <3DE66447.2D6@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: "private with" proposal
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:12:51 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.227.47.49
Message-ID: <3de678c9$1_7@nopics.sjc>
X-Trace: nopics.sjc 1038514377 216.227.47.49 (28 Nov 2002 12:12:57 -0800)
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ra.nrl.navy.mil!dca6-feed2.news.algx.net!allegiance!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DIRECTV!nopics.sjc!not-for-mail
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31299
Date: 2002-11-28T14:12:51-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"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.  Can't the rules be simply
> be changed as outlined in the proposal?  If compilers at this
> time already do enough to recognize withing a private unit
> in a public spec couldn't they be made to allow usage of withed
> private units only in the private part (and body)?
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
>
> --
> Vinny