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,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,cd029b9d6c03962d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Can't hide parts of ADTs in private children
Date: 1998/11/09
Message-ID: <uemrcoh6c.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 410013873
References: <364683EB.41C6@syd.csa.com.au>
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-11-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

David Bowerman <davidb@syd.csa.com.au> writes:

> I am implementing an Abstract Data Type (Class) in a package.  The code
> goes something like this:
> 
>   package Class_X_Package is
> 
>     type Class_X is private;
>     type Class_X_Ptr is access Class_X;
> 
>     ...  operations on objects of type X
> 
>   private
> 
>     type Class_X is
>       record
>         Component_A : Type_A;
>         Component_B : Type_B;
>         ...
>       end record;
> 
>   end Class_X_Package;
> 
> The abstract data type (X) is complex, and Type_A, Type_B, etc hide a
> lot of structure within themselves.
> I would like to break the package down further, declare the types, and
> generally hide the details of, Type_A, Type_B, etc (never intended to be
> visible to the client) in private child packages.

Why do Type_A, Type_B belong in child packages, instead of in library
packages? In building an ADT, you can use facilities of a library,
while making it clear that the user of your ADT should not use the
library directly. Unless Type_A depends on something else in
Class_X_Package, just put it in its own library level package.

> But I can't do this because these types are referred to in the private
> part of the parent package spec, and this isn't allowed to 'with' its
> children.
> 
> Can anyone suggest another way of doing it.

Alternatively, make Class_X an access type, which allows you to defer
the full type definition to the package body, where you can 'with'
child packages.

-- Stephe