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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d4e2f238dc61c890
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.albasani.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Protected types and visibility of their internals
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:18:00 -0500
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <g53kgh$ql1$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: 
 <b1f2203b-ed02-4031-bcba-40c0e1b1be07@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <uvdzed7l3.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <efab0add-0f40-4302-8057-85bee50639d6@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1215649106 27297 69.95.181.76 (10 Jul 2008 00:18:26
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:18:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1066
Date: 2008-07-09T19:18:00-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message 
news:efab0add-0f40-4302-8057-85bee50639d6@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
...
> It does seem like there
> ought to be a better way to accomplish all this---how about letting
> private and public parts of a package spec be interspersed?
>
> package P is
> private
>    type Some_Type is ...
> not private  -- heh, heh, heh!
>    protected type PT is
>       procedure Foo;
>    private
>       X : Some_Type;
>    end PT;
> private
>    .. other private stuff can go here if needed
> end P;
>
> But any solution is likely to be a huge burden on both the language
> designers and implementors, at this point.  I think we're stuck.

Tucker has seriously proposed such an idea (see AI05-0074-2), but he's never 
written up the real details so it is impossible to say what pitfalls there 
are in the idea.

                                    Randy.