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,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fa2cc518ef3b992c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Vladimir Olensky" Subject: Re: tagged types extensions - language design question Date: 2000/01/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 578851552 References: <867lgvs47x.fsf@ppp-112-253.villette.club-internet.fr> <38918156.7C35@nospam.com.tj> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Date: 2000-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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.