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,dbf84a1c2794f4fb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: packages and private parts
Date: 1997/02/10
Message-ID: <dewar.855630141@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 217957780
references: <32F170C8.6A88F208@cam.org> <dewar.854838063@merv>
 <32FA4C67.48D9@watson.ibm.com> <32FB27FF.794BDF32@innocon.com>
 <dewar.855326480@merv> <32FF4D8D.167EB0E7@innocon.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jeff Carter says

<<Except, of course, that anyone can write a child without changing
sources, but with the same effect. Putting the sources under CM doesn't
prevent this.>>

  It should, this is clearly something any CM system for Ada should
  provide (complete trackability of who writes what).

<<How do you know which children are official and which are not? How do
you know whether a programmer has written and used an unauthorized child
that is not known to the rest of the system?>>

  If your CM system cannot control the set of sources you are dealing
  with it is inadequate to the task.

<<Unchecked_Conversion and overlays using an address clause are easy to
detect. Child packages are very difficult to detect.>>

  This seems completely incomprehensible, child units are perfectly easy
  to "detect", you cannot use them without an explicit with statement!