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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4103f02f9e6c4df2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-14 17:10:39 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Ada 0y wish list: "with private" Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:04:11 -0500 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 982199236 13092 137.194.161.2 (15 Feb 2001 01:07:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:07:16 +0000 (UTC) To: "'comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org'" Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5263 Date: 2001-02-14T20:04:11-05:00 I would love to see this added to the language. What I have long wished for is to be able to do the following: package A is type B is private; private type B; -- If the completion is not here, -- then it's deferred to the body end A; package body A is type B is ...; end A; This would allow the separation of the spec and body without the bother of using an access type, and the associated dangling memory and garbage collection issues. While Dr. Wrigley indicated that it could be in a separate file, I'm not sure if what I described above is what he meant or if he's talking about a separate off of the spec. But, I would have not problem with it being required to be in the package body. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Dr Adrian Wrigley [mailto:amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk] I'd like something a bit similar. "separate" for the private part. This would allow the private part to be (for example) in a separate file. It could have its own context clause, thus obviating the need for the "with private" extension. I think the separation of the private part would make it easier to separate the specification from the implementation properly. For example, you usually need to edit the specification when writing the implementation. Project architects could forbid this (keep the spec read-only) if the private was separate.