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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,23cf9f1e93744eed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-31 10:14:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Need advice re package organization. References: <3F228F3B.9020203@attbi.com> <3F22F9E9.3040307@attbi.com> <5jn9ivoetll1fu2avn9hmjj6aaa7q7pmjn@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:59:16 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1059670752 198.96.223.163 (Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:59:12 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:59:12 EDT Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41091 Date: 2003-07-31T12:59:16-04:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:00:00 -0400, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" > wrote: >>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >>>Such subroutines could be viewed as an >>>equivalent to C++'s "private methods". What Ada does not have are >>>private data members in C++ sense. So we have: >>> >>>protected in C++ <--> private in Ada >>>private method <--> a subroutine in the body [a FAT plus to Ada ] >>>private member <--> missing [a minus] >> >>I think you need to add a dimension to this "chart", because >>there are multiple (at least 2) views: >> >> 1. simple client view >> 2. a _normal_ child package view >> >> (a _private_ child's view is the same I think, but if not, this >> is a 3rd). >> >>The problem I am trying to address, is #2. The child package sees >>all, even when you don't want it to. > > But if you do not want to see private things, then the package should > not be a child. You are missing the point. If the package is not a child package, then this new package loses all access to the other private types declared in the private section. Sometimes you need to have things both ways. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg