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: 1997/02/15
Message-ID: <dewar.855983452@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218922430
References: <32F170C8.6A88F208@cam.org> <dewar.854838063@merv>
 <32FA4C67.48D9@watson.ibm.com> <dewar.855276290@merv>
 <32FB51D8.1C90@watson.ibm.com> <dewar.855349349@merv>
 <3304E6C8.11E6@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Norman said

<<For the record, my memory is quite different.  I recall that, at least
early in the Mapping Phase of the Ada 9X project, many of the
reviewers--including Robert--were seriously concerned about this issue.>>

Your memory certainly bares no relation to what my position was. If you
remember I was the one arguing for a much more general capability
(with private) that would have been even more unacceptable from your
point of view, because it would have allowed *any* unit to get at
the private part of any other unit without permission!