From: Blady <p.p11@orange.fr>
Subject: Re: Equivalence between named access and anonymous access.
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 21:10:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <udd76k$33gb1$1@dont-email.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <udct43$3200c$1@dont-email.me>
Le 07/09/2023 à 18:18, Jeffrey R.Carter a écrit :
> 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.
>
Hello Jeff,
I got you point :-)
But, in this specific case, I was wondering why not writing all with
named access or all with anonymous access?
Pascal.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-07 19:10 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
2023-09-07 19:10 ` Blady [this message]
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