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,da85d9aaf769b16a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic package parameters not externally visible : what's the
	rational ?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <a8f7ef9f-ab94-43fe-917d-957b6f8f1473@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References: <d31a3f23-975d-4ae7-954a-82055b50f172@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
	<wcciqe26w5q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <hc7nfq$6o7$1@munin.nbi.dk>
	<wccaazcxvgn.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <b6d32b60-333f-495d-b17a-7ab589690bbb@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
	<hca52n$kom$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.75.149.92
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1256879970 16405 127.0.0.1 (30 Oct 2009 05:19:30
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:19:30 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.75.149.92;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8874
Date: 2009-10-29T22:19:30-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 28 oct, 20:12, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> By jove, I think he's got it! :-)
>
> The above reasoning makes sense, and it actually seems to reflect the
> supposed rationale. It would be nice if a fuller example of this was
> included somewhere. (I'd put it into the AARM if I had any idea of where =
it
> should go.)
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Randy.

While a remaining point would not look so much nice in a rational :
the name trouble. OK, it's nice the language hides by default and it's
not a trouble because one may show if he/she want. That said, in Ada,
everything must have a name ( ;) ) and I do not see a good rational
which could give any good reason about the fact that =93 if you want to
make it visible, you must trick the name =94, moreover that good naming
is an important part of Ada programs.

The point is then not about the possibility to hide or the possibility
to show (that is solved), and rather about the required trick on the
name.

I leave this one point to interested peoples, without me (because I
know it is a language fact and nothing could be able to change this).