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,dbf84a1c2794f4fb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: packages and private parts
Date: 1997/02/10
Message-ID: <JSA.97Feb10175831@alexandria>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 217935998
sender: news@organon.com (news)
references: <32F170C8.6A88F208@cam.org> <dewar.854838063@merv>
organization: Organon Motives, Inc.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.855349349@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> I repeat my earlier suggestion. I think this concern is a straw man. I
> certainly have not seen any problems arising in real application programs
> from this concern, has anyone else? I am not talking about cases you
> can construct in your mind, I am talking about real cases from real
> applications!

I agree.  What's more,


> Certainly it would be perectly fine to add a pragma restricting visibility
> in the manner Norman suggests, but this issue has never come up among the

this seems superfluous and a waste.  If you want something not merely
private but _damn_ private, then put it in the _body_ - that's one of
the reasons its there.  Or use the subpackage trick (which, in the end
has it in the body anyway).  I don't see the problem.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com