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,fa2cc518ef3b992c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: blancolioni@blancolioni.org (Fraser) Subject: Re: tagged types extensions - language design question Date: 2000/01/27 Message-ID: <86q4lm$9us$1@kimba.whitelion.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 578425468 References: X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: nnrp3-w.snfc21.pbi.net 949000033 216.101.252.104 (Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:07:13 PST) Organization: White Lion NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:07:13 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-01-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: paene lacrimavi postquam Vladimir Olensky scripsit: >The question is : > > Why in Ada it is not allowed to extend both public > and private part of the tagged type at one step ( using > kind of syntax as in the following example ): Ada doesn't have "partially private" records -- what you're talking about seems to be a special case of that. There are several reasons for this: it doesn't fit with the idea of 'private' (if you can fiddle with part of a record, it breaks the abstraction) and it's extra syntax for something with much cleaner alternatives (accessor functions), Private tagged types have effective public bits (the tag) but this is a Good Thing. In any case, why would you ever have non private tagged type? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Fraser.