Re: An observation of Ada (may offend)

[eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)]

In article <3kcflv$164a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) writes:

  > If there is a weakness in Ada encapsulation, it has nothing to do with
  > parameter lists, but with the definition of "logically within the
  > defining unit".  Anyone can write a child package that is "logically
  > within the defining unit".  (Do-While Jones once called this the "Howard
  > Hughes effect": strangers claiming to be your heirs.)...

    I prefer to call such a package a bastard child, and reserve the
more polite illegitimate child for cases where the parent package
specification acknowledges the possibility of unknown children.

    We debated this to great extent in Portsmouth, and I can
understand the consensus position.  But I wish that the ability to
acknowledge child units had been built into the language so that, for
example a pragma Restrictions(No_Unspecified_Child_Units); would make
sense.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...