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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h11g2000yqb.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: Indirect visibility of private part in child packages
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 04:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <bc225421-978e-41f8-8a01-d370e5236673@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <77683561-2b21-42c3-8c90-6c08a0c16b99@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
	<5854cebc-55a9-469d-88bd-86b4704f8689@c19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.198.58.250
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244116046 22215 127.0.0.1 (4 Jun 2009 11:47:26
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:47:26 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.198.58.250;
	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:6228
Date: 2009-06-04T04:47:26-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Bonjour Ludovic, and thanks for your reply :)

On 4 juin, 09:50, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> Maybe you can solve your problem like this:
>
> package body P1.P3 is
> =A0 =A0procedure A_Primitive (Item : out T3_Type) is
> =A0 =A0begin
> =A0 =A0 =A0 T1_Type (Item).Low_Level_Data :=3D ...;
> =A0 =A0end A_Primitive;
> end P1.P3;

I've just tried it, and it does not work better. The compiler
complains there are not selector Low_Level_Data for T1_Type.


> I am undecided whether the compiler is correct or wrong about the
> visibility of Low_Level_Data. On the one hand, P1.P3 cannot see the
> full declaration of T2_Type; on the other hand, it can see that
> T2_Type publicly inherits from T1_Type and can also see the full
> declaration of T1_Type.
This is exactly the same think in my mind. Perhaps the semantic is
ambigous here.

> It seems that the public (partial) view of T2_Type hides the full
> declaration of T1_Type. So, I think my solution would work by removing
> T2_Type out of the way.

T2_Type is required ;) The purpose is to have T2_Type and T3_Type, and
may be later some others, beside of each other.

> Another solution, which enforces encapsulation better, would be:
>
> package P1 is
> =A0 =A0type T1_Type is tagged private;
> private
> =A0 =A0type Some_Type is ...;
> =A0 =A0type T1_Type is tagged record
> =A0 =A0 =A0Low_Level_Data : Some_Type;
> =A0 =A0end record;
> =A0 =A0procedure Set (Item : out T1_Type; Data : in Some_Type);
> end P1;
>
> package body P1.P3 is
> =A0 =A0procedure A_Primitive (Item : out T3_Type) is
> =A0 =A0begin
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Set (Item, Data =3D> ...); -- OK, calls inherited primitive
> operation
> =A0 =A0end A_Primitive;
> end P1.P3;
>
> HTH

I will try it soon and tell about the result. But at first sight, I
think that the compiler gonna complain that Set is a primitive of
T1_Type and thus that it must be defined in the public part. Further
more, I think Set would habe to be redefined for each T2_Type, T3_Type
and etc.

Will try and tell later

Have a nice day