Re: "private with" proposal

[Dale Stanbrough <dstanbro@bigpond.net.au>]

In article <3DE6ECCB.650C4DCF@earthlink.net>,
 Vincent Marciante <INVALID_EXCEPT_FOR_marciant@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Yes, I get that from reading the proposal.  But the extra syntax 
> couldn't be any real benifit.   I mean one would still be able to
> plain old "with" a (non-private) unit even if it was only utilized
> in the private part.  So, I don't buy the "documents the not for export"
> _guideline_ benifit when dealing with non-private units that are 
> allowed to be withed by but are not allowed to be exported by a unit.
> 

If you have

   with private fred;
   package x is...
 
this will tell the reader more than

   with fred;
   package x is...


For example if you have the latter, and you change
fred, what will be the outcome on the rest of the
program? Will you have to change any package that withs
'x'?

If you have 

   with private fred;

and you change fred, you know you will not have to 
change any package that changes x.

Quite a good thing for readability.

On the other hand, any decent tool set should be able
to tell you this anyway...

Dale