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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Protected Type compiler complaint Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:53:16 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: ot/DC7n2aCvt5pcTM4dZCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20794 Date: 2014-07-08T09:53:16+02:00 List-Id: 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