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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,cb04cee6116c8ced X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Package's private parts and protected types Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 02:46:27 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <7ff3810f-3ee3-4f39-a54c-933ad7d0655c@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com> <472288fc-b5da-42c4-9e1b-1da1af5de896@q27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <7ta6c5Fb1oU1@mid.individual.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.66.190.226 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265625987 16705 127.0.0.1 (8 Feb 2010 10:46:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:46:27 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.66.190.226; posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8971 Date: 2010-02-08T02:46:27-08:00 List-Id: On 8 f=E9v, 11:10, "Alex R. Mosteo" wrote: > Frankly, these non-orthogonalities about regular and protected/tasks type= s > were really nagging me in Ada95 (the dot notation only for these types, f= or > instance, and the visibility of privates that you point to). Now at Ada05= , > it's the mix of traditional and OO notation caused by interfaces what bug= s > me. Although I've never confessed it here at comp.lang.ada, I feel the same too, at least about notation. Luckily, Ada still allow me to preserve consistency granting me the choice to use a dotted notation or not : I never use the dotted notation for consistency and clarity purpose (except that it's mandatory with protected types and tasks, and that's ok for me with record components, as it's implementation level). > Also, the fact that making a protected version of a regular object involv= es > so much boilerplate code is a regular d=E9j=E0-vu that pains me in my dre= ams > (;-)), compare it to java where adding the keyword synchronized is enough= . > (Not that I would want java granularity for synchronized; the bugs I've s= een > caused by "clever" overoptimization of critical sections...) I could not tell about comparison between Java and Ada at this point, as I've never experienced tasking with Java (I use to self-learn Java, but quickly leave it for some reasons). While the point you've spotted seems interesting.