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: 103376,9a4a0b8e5206a866
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Conversion of Access Types Question
Date: 1999/01/21
Message-ID: <787d25$hq5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 435225697
References: <369DFFFC.A160D47C@neta.com> <77l492$b5s@hobbes.crc.com>
 <77ma9b$6ep$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <wccu2xmq6k3.fsf@world.std.com>
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x16.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 21 14:19:58 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-01-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <wccu2xmq6k3.fsf@world.std.com>,
  Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:

> It would have been better to simply make all access types
> behave like the "all" kind, and get rid of the "all"
> syntax.


Indeed, I agree. Meanwhile, it is not a bad idea at all
to routinely use ALL, and in particular, exported access
types from standard packages should usually have ALL.
You will notice that the standard RM packages generally
follow this rule.

A coding style rule that requires the use of ALL on *all*
access types is not at all unreasonable.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own