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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.66.85.231 with SMTP id k7mr1423759paz.38.1344848775178;
        Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p10ni47248941pbh.1!nntp.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!novia!newsfeed.yul.equant.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news-feed.eu.lambdanet.net!news.bcc.de!newsfeeder.ewetel.de!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Vasiliy Molostov" <molostoff@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 04:25:04 +0400
Organization: None
Message-ID: <op.wim93214ka8ora@aspire.local>
References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <e416cb92-6ec8-4514-8fa9-c35d6432b117@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4noj4zof.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <jvnchp$r5c$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <wccr4rkqed5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <op.wiml9rw3ka8ora@aspire.local>
 <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.wim0pbprka8ora@aspire.local>
 <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: Xw13RWgh8yxgPSv0x3+H9w.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.01 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Received-Bytes: 2359
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Date: 2012-08-07T04:25:04+04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=
=BB(=D0=B0) =D0=B2 =D1=81=D0=B2=D0=BE=D1=91=D0=BC =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D1=8C=
=D0=BC=D0=B5 Tue,  =

07 Aug 2012 01:52:34 +0400:

Probably, am not right being so peace-less motivated.

With your specification example, you could imagine several subprograms  =

with different parameter specifications, but with the same name, which i=
s  =

most frequently used in Ada - text_io.put, open, close and similar names=
  =

frequently used for different kind of subprograms doing similar things a=
nd  =

those purpose is to keep caller's body (implementation) clear from  =

close_pipe close_file (close_stream, value_from_string and etc)...

So you probably say about how to supply the same specification in its fu=
ll  =

qualified form twicely - in public and in private part, but in different=
  =

ways and for different purpose.

So spec is indeed atomic and you can not simply divide it into independe=
nt  =

parts.