From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Protected Type compiler complaint
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:53:16 +0200
Date: 2014-07-08T09:53:16+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <tdhmicmh24q3$.aj050u9h78ka$.dlg@40tude.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Vsqdnahp47JQcifOnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:06:53 -0500, framefritti wrote:
> In my humble and "gut" opinion, maybe in this case the use of a global
> object is not as bad as in other cases since by its own nature a protected
> object acts as a communication mean between different tasks, so it is
> "natural" that it must be visible to "everyone" (although you could
> partially restrict its visibility by placing it inside a suitable child
> package).
That mixes tasks with modules and modules with scopes.
> Moreover, protected object have implicitly some kind of "high
> level" interface, so that its access is somehow controlled.
It is rather the semantics of the access. The interface is same - operation
calls. (Ada even tried some feeble kind of unifying "protected" and "plain"
interfaces.)
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-08 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-07 7:15 Protected Type compiler complaint NiGHTS
2014-07-07 7:55 ` Simon Wright
2014-07-07 14:23 ` NiGHTS
2014-07-07 16:37 ` Adam Beneschan
2014-07-07 17:21 ` Simon Wright
2014-07-08 17:03 ` Shark8
2014-07-08 17:50 ` Anh Vo
2014-07-07 19:06 ` framefritti
2014-07-08 7:11 ` Georg Bauhaus
2014-07-08 7:53 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox