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: geert@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl (Geert Bosch) Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard Date: 1996/09/02 Message-ID: <50d2nb$eko@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177934363 references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <503sbo$j45@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <507akg$t9u@krusty.irvine.com> organization: La Calandre Infortunee newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff (bobduff@world.std.com) wrote: `` Quite true. Private parts are primarily an efficiency hack. But this change would be much more sweeping than my idea of allowing the private part to have its own with_clauses. (I think putting the with_clauses inside things makes more sense anyway, independent of your idea.) '' You shouldn't put with_clauses inside things! Currently you can easily see what packages a compilation module depends on, since with_clauses are right at the start of the file. It would be a really bad idea if it was possible to, for example, hide an instantiation of an Unchecked_Conversion somewhere in the package spec. I agree although that private parts belong in the body of the package. Linkers should be smarter indeed. Even thinking about the way C programmers rely on the linker makes me shiver... -- E-Mail: geert@sun3.iaf.nl ``I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.'' Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943