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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,735c710b5e547bad
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.220.230 with SMTP id pz6mr1502874pbc.3.1343494770216;
        Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 c10ni46380pbw.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2005 puzzle
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <50ba6370-c055-478a-af3d-3e31ae11da99@googlegroups.com>
References: <1arp60wtxes8h$.1qs6bt732ztgp.dlg@40tude.net>
 <030cde76-7435-405d-9f12-ac7f730ecab8@googlegroups.com>
 <1f9q6vk5z2r3t$.1hayo9rmxfwu7$.dlg@40tude.net> <ju8atj$734$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wd9m63dfb4hn.1feik6xrauuel$.dlg@40tude.net> <juafd9$fa5$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1agfifqlayl3y.1bp09z5i37ewk$.dlg@40tude.net> <jucrlq$d2c$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1nnq1oprn6h4f.1s5myl3oupdds$.dlg@40tude.net> <jul1rf$3rn$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <57ed1bca-b503-492c-a3b1-012369484e93@googlegroups.com>
 <e3lpckmcck22$.eqnl4sn38ezy$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <juq03a$aph$1@munin.nbi.dk> <1gt5njrqzprkt$.1f9deqqcwyyuq.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m2vchapt3w.fsf@nidhoggr.home> <1g6eygs4wyie8.x1sl1gap1gec$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c2f946fc-c028-4869-a469-5f79aee11556@googlegroups.com>
 <16ft4hb6xzphu.z8f7urnw3xu0.dlg@40tude.net>
 <50128262$0$6554$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1x51ztmeo2hll.jtsosl0kzzhi.dlg@40tude.net>
 <a43a3b4b-efeb-475f-9c5d-d19232c91c1c@googlegroups.com>
 <2dyx4yaenfz9$.ldh4ahlp469f.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.7.101.84
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1343494769 17578 127.0.0.1 (28 Jul 2012 16:59:29
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:59:29 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
In-Reply-To: <2dyx4yaenfz9$.ldh4ahlp469f.dlg@40tude.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=91.7.101.84;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-07-28T09:59:27-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Saturday, July 28, 2012 12:37:21 PM UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> I see what you mean. But since no objects of abstract types may exist and
>> somehow you have to provide the private components of derived nonprivate
>> objects, the proper Ada way (as intended by ARG, I guess) is child
>> packages.
>
> That changes nothing. An abstract type remains abstract. You can derive a
> non-abstract (and thus necessarily broken) type from it and expose the
> latter.

I don't understand what you mean (for non-limited types; I see the problem for limited ones).
Why is it necessarily broken? It has private and visible parts, so what?