Re: Ada OOP alternatives?

[stefan-lucks@see-the.signature]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:
> >
> >> This would make
> >> it possible to dispense with private parts and put all of the
> >> "private" stuff into package bodies.
> >
> > Hmm, I would consider private declarations rather as a private interface.
> 
> If what currently goes in the private part were moved to the body, then
> child package bodies would need visibility on their parent's body.

Maybe, that reveals an issue with the way how Ada95 introduced child 
packages? 

In the book, "Ada in Action", 
  <http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~dirk/ada-belgium/aia/> 
the author criticises the way how Ada95 introduced child packages. The 
issue is that changing the private parts of a package P may break the 
child P.C. In most cases, one may hope that P.C just doesn't compile any 
more. But the risk is always that P.C compiles cleanly and silently does 
something wrong, due to the change of the private parts of P. 

Stefan

-- 
------ Stefan Lucks   --  Bauhaus-University Weimar  --   Germany  ------
               Stefan dot Lucks at uni minus weimar dot de
------  I  love  the  taste  of  Cryptanalysis  in  the  morning!  ------