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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:56ce:: with SMTP id
 o197-v6mr931435itb.32.1538062420024;
        Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:de07:: with SMTP id v7-v6mr212601oig.5.1538062419924;
 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!x98-v6no70555ita.0!news-out.google.com!z5-v6ni74ite.0!nntp.google.com!x98-v6no70551ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <100214be-3866-4dd1-a8dd-c26ce97b52e3@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=73.205.150.94;
 posting-account=Ru7E4QoAAAC_HiQ2D8LjZ7rh1mbTNcVn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 73.205.150.94
References: <0956f152-7902-47cb-98e2-c6e5ba68b6b5@googlegroups.com>
 <6632bf33-17aa-46f8-9ef7-f6e025eab3a4@googlegroups.com>
 <100214be-3866-4dd1-a8dd-c26ce97b52e3@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <46e9e115-e317-4fcd-9f21-2ffeef927e3f@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Code organization
From: NiGHTS <nights@unku.us>
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:33:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54445
Date: 2018-09-27T08:33:39-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 11:01:11 AM UTC-4, NiGHTS wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:43:49 AM UTC-4, Shark8 wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:24:48 AM UTC-6, NiGHTS wrote:
> > >=20
> > > Any thoughts on this?
> >=20
> > Organizationally, I've been able to leverage SEPARATE and nested packag=
es to a fairly decent effect.
> >=20
> > As for the particular problem of the nested-task I don't think that wou=
ld work, although you /could/ make a generic package off of that internal t=
ask, using IN OUT formal parameters for the dependent state you're relying =
on... though I'm not sure that would make things easier, per se.
>=20
> I had actually not used "separate" before. I read up on it and it's inter=
esting.
>=20
> Does this only work on procedures declared in the package spec or can it =
work for procedures declared in the body of another procedure or task?

I looked into it further and indeed it seems I can use this for separating =
code for "subunits". I can definitely use this to my advantage.

Thanks for your feedback.