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,d10596e187e90822
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Private Children
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <m3yahd4bet.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 492208552
References: <m3bteacxb8.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <7klja3$c0p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <376E70A5.F77E558D@averstar.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:07:38 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-06-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 21 Jun 1999 17:04, Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com> wrote:

> To answer the question posed by this new question, the answer
> given by Dale was correct, that private children provide "compilation
> privacy."  If you want to allow something to be "with"ed by public
> children's specs, but contain content that is only visible to
> the private part of the child's spec, the following idiom works:
> 
>    package Mostly_Private is
>    private
>        ... -- Declarations visible only in private part of other public
>        ...  -- siblings
>    end Mostly_Private;
> 
> That is, put the entire set of declarations in the private part
> of a public child.

I did what I think you wanted me to do, but got this error message:

gcc -c -gnatc /home/matt/p-c2.ads
p-c2.ads:9:23: "I1" is not a visible entity of "C1"


Is this a compiler bug, or did I misunderstand what you said?

Can a package really see the private part of its sibling?  I thought
that only your own children could see your private part.

Or did you mean for me to put I1 in the private part of P, not P.C1?


--STX
package P is

   pragma Pure;

end P;


package P.C1 is
private

  I1 : Integer;

end P.C1;


with P.C1;
package P.C2 is

  I2 : Integer;

private

  I3 : Integer := P.C1.I1;

end P.C2;