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: a07f3367d7,cb04cee6116c8ced
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!m31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Package's private parts and protected types
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 04:43:39 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <742482e7-82da-471d-b401-6c497a3665de@m31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: <7ff3810f-3ee3-4f39-a54c-933ad7d0655c@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
	<e89844fd-9f16-40a1-821a-177d4f02caf4@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<1v2la97s2yyvd.1rcy0ana8mver.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.198.58.172
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265719420 7110 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2010 12:43:40
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:43:40 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: m31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.198.58.172;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9030
Date: 2010-02-09T04:43:39-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 8 f=E9v, 11:20, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> package P is
> =A0 =A0protected type T is
> =A0 =A0 =A0 ...
> =A0 =A0private
> =A0 =A0 =A0 ... -- Why is it here? Is it C++ or Ada?
> =A0 =A0end T;
> private
> =A0 =A0... -- It belongs here! Or better to the package body
> end P;
>
About this =93 klugde =94 (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.