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,df854b5838c3e14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Gripe about Ada, rep specs that won't.
Date: 1996/03/21
Message-ID: <dewar.827467035@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143662876
references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4iq71v$cvr@news4.digex.net>
 <dewar.827374356@schonberg> <4isol4$dm7@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
 <Don8H5.AKI@world.std.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"System.File_IO is *not* Ada 95-specific.  It is GNAT-specific."

Not only that, but it absolutely should NOT be used by user programs. I
wonder whether we should make these private packages to emphasize this.

children of System in GNAT other than the language defined children are
private to the GNAT implementation. They are undocumented, and can
change without notice at any time.

In a formal sense they should certainly be private packages, but that
makes them completely impossible to use, which may be a bit over fierce

Still the kind of confusion that appears here is worrisome. NO user code
should be using system.file_io.

I think we *will* make all these packages private in the next version
of GNAT, what do people think???