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: 103376,158ce2376534c35d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!x10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Derived private interface
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 21:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <b420bce2-25e9-4500-b31b-60d3c4d7878f@x10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <27656578-65aa-48b9-9f89-4ebd4e0cb02a@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
 <0fe3b0f8-c064-444d-899d-640e891b58c3@w4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <128d8eb5-1cc6-47e3-a09b-b53a5ef289ce@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <4e141501$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <4b2728fc-6127-45d8-a314-9fc491701c26@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <4e145c3a$0$6542$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <iv2e0o$uri$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <4e14dc0c$0$6565$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <425f89e6-8c77-4615-a717-f6991ca63b65@v12g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
 <4e15be36$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1c98072b-e5b9-43dd-9fde-f6687086deef@w24g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.156.44.178
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1310099375 8292 127.0.0.1 (8 Jul 2011 04:29:35
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 04:29:35 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: x10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.156.44.178;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESRCNK
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64;
 rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20131
Date: 2011-07-07T21:29:35-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

     3.     package P1 is
     5.         type T1 is abstract tagged private;
     6.         procedure Op (X : in out T1) is abstract;
     8.     private
     9.         type T1 is abstract tagged null record;
    10.     end P1;
    11.
    55.     package C4 is
    57.         type T1 is private;
    58.         --  Overriding status is not known.  Should we care
    59.         --  in this case, for a type that is simply private?
    60.         procedure Op (X : in out T1);
    62.     private
    63.         type T1 is new P1.T1 with null record;
                -- But do we have to care here?
                overriding -- or any other syntax
                procedure Op (X : in out T1);
   64.     end C4;

All these attempts do not solve the privacy issues of Georg's example
repeated here. Would we have to repeat the declaration of Op after the
full type declaration when we know whether it is overriding or not?