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,efe03f20164a417b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-24 08:52:51 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!ceres.fokus.gmd.de!zib-berlin.de!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: An observation of Ada (may offend) Date: 24 Mar 1995 10:52:51 -0600 Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 968 5800 Message-ID: <3kutd3$ngi@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <3kbkm1$41o@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <3kcflv$164a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <3ku7us$117l@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com Date: 1995-03-24T10:52:51-06:00 List-Id: In article <3ku7us$117l@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>, Peter Hermann wrote: >Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) wrote: >: Of course, and the reason for posting this, is that one needed >: form of the pragma is "pragma Child_Units(None);" or "pragma Child_Units;" >: I perfer the second form, what do the rest of you think? > >I would not recommend that whole direction because >one of the strengths of the child feature is exactly the fact, >that the parent need not be touched further on. >For Ada200X, the abs private part may be more convenient (if any) >but, imho, this overburdening of the language is superfluous. > Ah, but that's what pragmas are for, eh? :-) The way I see it is you have three options: 1. Anybody can extend your package 2. Nobody can extend your package 3. Specific "children" are permitted to extend your package Option 1 is definitely supported in Ada95 Option 2 and 3 can be supported with Eachus' suggestion (giving a "friend"-like pragma) The fundamental issue is, however, can you thwart options 2 or 3? Given the pragma Robert Eachus suggestied, the answser is "No" for pragma Child_Units(None) and "yes" for Pragma Child_Units(..list..). All I have to do for option 3 is create a child unit that has a matching name. It kinda leads me to conclude that perhaps just having a "pragma No_Child_Units;" is the best thing to have. Maybe this discussion should migrate to the MRT list? -- 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 :-)