Re: tagged types extensions - language design question

["Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com>]

Andy wrote in message <38918156.7C35@nospam.com.tj>...

>Not sure what you mean by the 'layout'. The private parts are private,
>the child types should not care about the layout of the private data
>(unless they themselves are located in child packages and therefore
>have visibility to their parent's private bits).


This is exactly my case. I am creating a "tree" of child packages from
one root (which has only private components) and children have access
to the private fields of their parents. Some of the extensions
have public attributes (some of them do not) and I have to
to create additional intermediate package  for components with
public attributes. This is not a big problem, it is just inconvenience.

Actually the problem is that naming scheme becomes more
complicated as I need to invent names for such intermediate
packages and everything should be clean and easily understandable.

Regards,
Vladimir  Olensky


>
>In regards to your original question: why isn't both a public and
>private
>extention allowed at the same time? I expect it is to avoid an overley
>complicated syntax to acheive something that can effectively be acheived
>by other (at least two suggested in this thread) means.