Re: Package's private parts and protected types

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 8 fév, 11:20, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> package P is
>    protected type T is
>       ...
>    private
>       ... -- Why is it here? Is it C++ or Ada?
>    end T;
> private
>    ... -- It belongs here! Or better to the package body
> end P;
>
About this “ klugde ” (as someone called it), here are some words
which attempt to explain the reason of this syntax :
Quoted from
http://www.adaic.com/standards/95rat/RAThtml/rat95-p2-9.html
(Rationale 95)

> Alternative structures were also considered and rejected. One was
> that the private part of a protected unit be visible to the
> enclosing package. However, this was considered confusing, and felt
> to be inconsistent with the visibility of the private part of a
> subpackage. We also considered splitting the protected type (and
> task) specification into two separate parts, with the private
> operations and data components declared in a second part included
> inside the private part of the enclosing package. However, this
> seemed like an unnecessary extra syntactic complexity, so we finally
> adopted the simpler suggestion from two Revision Requests (RR-0487,
> RR-0628) of using private within the specification to demarcate the
> private operations.