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: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard
Date: 1996/09/03
Message-ID: <dewar.841801412@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178348847
references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
 	<503sbo$j45@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <DwyFuC.E0K@world.std.com>
 	<507akg$t9u@krusty.irvine.com> <Dx05yF.Jpo@world.std.com>
 	<ws9bufo7kle.fsf@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> <dewar.841702553@schonberg>
 	<ws93f10kxcy.fsf@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> <dewar.841755298@schonberg>
 <ws9hgpfmeos.fsf@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Laurent says
"   My point was that "private part = primarily an efficiency hack" is
technically true in Ada 83 (since we can remove it, but I'm not
suggesting it should have been done ;-), but false in Ada 95 where a
private part has an important semantic role in visibility issues."

Now that I do not understand. The point of private parts in both Ada 83
and Ada 95 is to control visibility. If you remove private parts in
Ada 83, you lose the visibility control, the same is true in ada 95
(child units see the spec as well!)