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: a07f3367d7,75ce2ead897158b2
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.72.199 with SMTP id n7mr3656408qaj.5.1364623511731;
        Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.178.244 with SMTP id db20mr129325igc.12.1364623511574;
 Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 v17ni6816qad.0!nntp.google.com!ca1no17269629qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <kj2en4$9q1$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=173.228.52.174;
 posting-account=Qh2kiQoAAADpCLlhT_KTYoGO8dU3n4I6
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.228.52.174
References: <0c77e832-e12b-446d-af24-78d77c358f1e@googlegroups.com>
 <25ee066d-3270-4efd-829f-ed40b04c0655@googlegroups.com>
 <kj2en4$9q1$1@munin.nbi.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <89292c53-1d4e-48a7-b2ae-a10983ef4168@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: My bug or else regarding Visibility Rules
From: Anh Vo <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 06:05:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2013-03-29T23:05:11-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:03:13 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message  
> news:25ee066d-3270-4efd-829f-ed40b04c0655@googlegroups.com... 
> > On Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:54:26 PM UTC-7, Anh Vo wrote:
> >> For the codes below GNAT complains that In_Index, Buffer, and Out_Index 
> >> are undefined. 
> > However, if I comment out private key word, GNAT is happy. Did I violate 
> > Ada syntax rules? Thanks. 
> > 
> > 13.1.1(11): The usage names in an aspect_definition [ are not resolved at  
> > the point of the 
> >associated declaration, but rather] are resolved at the end of the  
> >immediately enclosing declaration list. 
> > 
> > In your example, the "immediately enclosing declaration list" ends at the  
> > keyword PRIVATE 
> > when that keyword is present; but if you take it out, the declaration list  
> > ends at "end Circular_Queue;".  
> 
> Which is the long way to say that the expression of a public aspect has to  
> be made up only of public functions and objects. Otherwise, how would a  
> caller be able to figure out the meaning of a precondition that they are  
> required to meet? Clients can never be required to look in a private part.

Actually, this part only involves post-conditions (implementer), not preconditions (clients). 
 
A. Vo