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-Thread: a07f3367d7,cb04cee6116c8ced
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-fusi2.netcologne.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:19:24 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Package's private parts and protected types
References: <7ff3810f-3ee3-4f39-a54c-933ad7d0655c@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
  <e89844fd-9f16-40a1-821a-177d4f02caf4@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <1v2la97s2yyvd.1rcy0ana8mver.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3bb38996-47f7-4f30-8255-f011501404b5@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <1qttzk1jbh24i$.xid2h7me3oec.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1qttzk1jbh24i$.xid2h7me3oec.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4b700f5c$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Feb 2010 14:19:24 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 888b2bde.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=BgR[CAmOj]3LNKYb?b>0764IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;UOVh\2?PLE0nc\616M64>:Lh>_cHTX3j=V5LKN?67T<=
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8977
Date: 2010-02-08T14:19:24+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov schrieb:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 02:54:17 -0800 (PST), Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) wrote:
> 
>> On 8 f�v, 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 local
>>> 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.
> 
> Yes, OK. Maybe it is not so offending as private components of a protected
> type, but you are right. "C++-ish" notation (wasn't it actually before
> C++?) poison is at work here as well.

Perhaps a combination of Eiffel's visibility sets and
Ada's seperation of spec and body?