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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.75.201 with SMTP id e9mr1682308paw.22.1345470702301;
        Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p10ni106104370pbh.1!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news2.euro.net!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:51:40 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wi0fliuoka8ora@aspire.local>
 <44bb5c96-a158-41c1-8e7d-ae83b2c0aca1@googlegroups.com>
 <1mchat48i3fos.1ksbz02nuzf5f$.dlg@40tude.net> <k0ei0u$214$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <rznvpohy5adk$.1of2k7nklsaam.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502b832f$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <vqx5pu5yd4m7.jlystys02zcx$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502bc4df$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <sgy28ka2rw0a.119txios2lu0g$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502bd3e6$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <17qgsq5y7or0v.16z18fmcew1lt$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502c149e$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <ak8h9w7770bx$.ncrikznng6v3$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502cd701$0$6568$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <pstv4iafyysv$.1mq6dicsj9my0.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502d3c68$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <mhbnq53dwqt2.r7w4k1ptmxf1$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <502e9039$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <40tmogy4d1b5.1kc2gm8qfrkdu.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <40tmogy4d1b5.1kc2gm8qfrkdu.dlg@40tude.net>
Message-ID: <503240ed$0$6569$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Aug 2012 15:51:41 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140ffb6f.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=h1@`kUgS>VL0YVY]kmLTlDMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOKhN115;<XaX@nc\616M64>JLh>_cHTX3jM1P8ai]oJN>H
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
X-Received-Bytes: 2559
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-20T15:51:41+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 18.08.12 08:24, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> First it was heterogeneous sources, now it is a situation. Could you state
> the problem?


The problem is to make people produce computer based systems
that produce data in such a way that computer based systems connected
to other computer based systems can process the emitted data well.
Since there is no universal definition of "to process well", participants
in a situation need to define it. One aspect to consider is the amount
of heterogeneity of everything relevant to the respective system.