Re: An observation of Ada (may offend)

[dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)]

In article <3knah2$p4m@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
Norman H. Cohen <ncohen@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <EACHUS.95Mar20111527@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitre.org
>(Robert I. Eachus) writes: 
>|>                                     But I wish that the ability to
>|> acknowledge child units had been built into the language so that, for
>|> example a pragma Restrictions(No_Unspecified_Child_Units); would make
>|> sense.
>(-:  (-:  (-: 
>
>At one point I suggested that a package be allowed to have an "absolutely
>private" part, hidden even from children: 
>
>   package P is
>      ...
>   abs private
>      ...
>   end P;
>
>(I took the liberty of abbreviating "absolutely" to avoid the need for a
>new reserved word.)  Somebody (sorry, can't remember who) did me one
>better, suggesting the following syntax: 
>
>   package P is
>      ...
>   private for all with out exception
>      ...
>   end P;
>

Clever, but inelegant.  I always favored:

	package P is
	   ...
	private private
	   ...
	end P;

Of course, I've suggested MUCH worse things to the MRT :-)

-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
		if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)