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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d60e0492375aa57a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-13 18:21:08 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Visibility of private packages??
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:16:45 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <uljbq1j7cqsa8f@corp.supernews.com>
References: <DtD19.636$C8.2739@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
 <3d47a99e.4548109@news.demon.co.uk>
 <dstanbro-8DD764.22063931072002@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <wcc3cu0hvne.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28001
Date: 2002-08-13T20:16:45-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote in message ...
>Dale Stanbrough <dstanbro@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>
>> Yes, that's correct. I think this is a case where the designers got
it
>> wrong. The current rules prevent "compilation coupling", that is any
>> change to a private package will never result in the need to
recompile
>> a package outside of the hierachy.
>
>Isn't the ARG considering relaxing this rule?

Yes, AI-262, "private with". Already approved by the ARG. The example
would be written in Ada 0Y as:

   private package a.b is
      type hidden is <something>
   end a.b;

   private with a.b;
   package a.c is
      type not_hidden is private;
   private
      type not_hidden is new a.b.hidden;
   end;

              Randy Brukardt