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,f93e461e8491e322
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:47:59 -0600
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <eoned5$663$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Limited_Controlled, orthogonality and related issues
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:48:52 -0600
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
Message-ID: <qOSdnfM_csoy6i3YnZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-l3mP8myibDhFh5E6eWe2zbNIhY0vZXniB9Mo9/EjTENTfQ6V9+q4iJB9SZotvZUAmYS3lpE/7z+aqSv!n89L2bl5RfdsRtqDqRvF3l67S5pXUkV+p6Qqp5VS/nLicqX/4Yi8LFPaTbh7JJip2Ylnh24yBrfF!Wxgly14zsmIiyQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8311
Date: 2007-01-19T01:48:52-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Maciej Sobczak" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:eoned5$663$1@cernne03.cern.ch...
...
> In conclusion, my decision to make T and S controlled appeared to not be
> orthogonal to the rest of the package.
>
> What are your thoughts about this?

It's dubious to have two abstractions in the same package. It's a nice
simplification compared to other languages, but it's usually better to have
fewer types in one package rather than more. If T and S were in different
packages, this problem wouldn't happen. Note that one of the packages could
be nested or a child, and that would still have the visibility on the
private part.

Something like:

package Root is
   type S is limited private;
...
end Root;

package Root.Child is
   type T is limited private;
   procedure Do_Something (A : T, B : S);
...
end Root.Child;

Usually, one or the other of the abstractions can be used alone, and that is
the one that belongs in the root.

                    Randy.