From: "Jeffrey R.Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org.not>
Subject: Re: Equivalence between named access and anonymous access.
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 18:18:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <udct43$3200c$1@dont-email.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <udcsdo$31uib$1@dont-email.me>
On 2023-09-07 18:06, Blady wrote:
>
> Why choosing named access for New_BorderLayout and anonymous access for
> AddLayoutComponent or GetLayoutComponent for the type of parameters P1_xxx and
> the return type?
It's very poor design to have access types in the visible part of a non-private
pkg spec.
--
Jeff Carter
"This language [Ada] has a remarkable power of expressiveness,
something vital to the rapid development of complicated software,
and its 'strong typing' makes it easy to debug and modify."
Scott and Bagheri
160
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-07 16:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-06 14:37 Equivalence between named access and anonymous access Blady
2023-09-06 15:54 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2023-09-07 16:06 ` Blady
2023-09-07 16:18 ` Jeffrey R.Carter [this message]
2023-09-07 19:10 ` Blady
2023-09-07 20:23 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2023-09-06 20:55 ` Gautier write-only address
2023-09-07 0:20 ` Jeffrey R.Carter
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox