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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard
Date: 1996/08/29
Message-ID: <503sbo$j45@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 177327590
distribution: world
references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
x-xxmessage-id: <AE4BB2BE5D011B17@obibicut.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


...and given someone has started this thread :-)

I presume the occasional murmers of unhappiness about the lack of utility
of private packages is due to the fact that they can't be 'with'ed by
a public {package|subprogram} spec because of the possibility of 
revealing private details (is this right?).

If this is the case then could we have...


	with private fred; -- this does not mean fred is private!
	                   -- perhaps "private with fred;" would be
	                   -- better?
	
	package mary is
	
		...
	private
		-- can only use resources from fred in
		-- the private section, e.g. for renames,
		-- type completions etc.
	end mary;

?

Gee, this is fun! :-).


Dale