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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9ac62ca34a465706
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,9ac62ca34a465706
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: nabbasi@qualcomm.com (Nasser Abbasi)
Subject: Re: on OO differnces between Ada95 and C++
Date: 1996/02/22
Message-ID: <4gh204$l7n@qualcomm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 140570988
references: <4gbq7q$g08@qualcomm.com> <Dn4J2F.uI@bton.ac.uk>
organization: QUalcomm Inc.
reply-to: x!news.be.innet.net!INbe.net!usenet
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++
Date: 1996-02-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <Dn4J2F.uI@bton.ac.uk>, je@bton.ac.uk (John English) says:
>
>Nasser Abbasi (nabbasi@qualcomm.com) wrote:
>: Lets also assume that we need to define a Money Type, defined in
>: the base class Account.     
>
>: In Ada95 this type is defined in the package Account.ads that also
>: includes the definition of the tagged record type Account (along with
>: operations that act on Account type).
>
>: Now, In Ada95, a client that wishes to use Saving_Account type (and
>: any operations on it) will "with" the Saving_Account Package.


>
>If the spec of Saving_Account has "with Account" at the beginning,
>"with Saving_Account" will imply "with Account". 

I do not think this is true. That is the main reason I asked the 
question in the first place. (I did not like having to "with" 
a package that was allready with'ed by a package I am "withing" ).

If what you say was the case, then types defined in package "A"
will be seen by clients to a package "B" where "B" has with'ed A. But
it is not so. Clients of "B" must also 'with' "A" to see types defined
in "A" even though "B: has allready  with'ed "A".

Thanks all for your inputs, I see 2 solutions now to this. I like the
child package solution mentioned by a number of people (including
John English).

I also like the fact that withing Ada packages is not transitive. when
I "with" Package A, only what is in A is visible, and not every thing
that in the chain of packages that A might have "withed" (unless 
offcourse tagged types are involved). This way seems to give better 
control of things. In C/C++ including files A.h, will also "pull" in
everthing that is included by A.h to the client level and make
these things visible at the client level.. 

Nasser