Re: Derived private interface

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"AdaMagica" <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de> wrote in message 
news:7c515c1d-d170-4cd2-8702-6532e09d6f42@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>I guess this has to be based on visibility to prevent privacy
> breaking. In these cases where overriding indicators are illegal in
> the spec, they can be applied in the body.
>
> Note that the RM does not make any statement whether they shall appear
> at the spec, body, or both.

Actually, it does. Indicators are not allowed on bodies unless those bodies 
can act as declarations.

> I think a general idiom should be: use them at both places as long as
> is legal. Thus you provide the most information to the compiler and
> future readers of the code.

You can't do that in general (specifically, for protected subprograms) and 
that is intentional. The intent was that the indicators be provided only 
once (on the spec, or on a body acting as a spec). Beyond that, there was an 
allowance to put indicators on bodies when they were omitted from the spec; 
but there was never any intent that indicators would be *repeated* on 
bodies.

                                           Randy.