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: 103376,23cf9f1e93744eed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-04 12:38:50 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: Need advice re package organization.
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:40:36 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vitdia25c8mc32@corp.supernews.com>
References: <pan.2003.07.26.13.08.25.810488@mail.utexas.edu>
 <3F228F3B.9020203@attbi.com> <yaxUa.374$XK4.16279@read1.cgocable.net>
 <3F22F9E9.3040307@attbi.com> <M2YUa.972$XK4.65085@read1.cgocable.net>
 <5jn9ivoetll1fu2avn9hmjj6aaa7q7pmjn@4ax.com>
 <y%xVa.1302$j_5.4631@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <fiveiv8h309dkvjqf6nb343osfjl41qt3o@4ax.com>
 <clWVa.4191$mv6.741217@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <jtkhivs294g51t3mfdbbj84mbcq1amn7fe@4ax.com>
 <AVbWa.1379$qN3.184689@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <viivkaflsaamc3@corp.supernews.com>
 <7GfWa.5186$mv6.907516@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <vilhrvdbtidm49@corp.supernews.com> <uu191kqqd.fsf@nasa.gov>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41176
Date: 2003-08-04T14:40:36-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Stephen Leake" <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:uu191kqqd.fsf@nasa.gov...
> The C++ notions of public, protected, and private member functions do
> not map one-to-one into Ada, but they map fairly well according to the
> following scheme (data members below):
>
> C++         Ada
> public      public part of package spec
> protected   private part of package spec
> private     package body

Thanks.

It doesn't seem particularly valuable to me; the extra type(s) needed to
achieve this are mildly annoying but hardly in the class of critical flaw.
And this was an issue that the Ada 9X design team discussed, and it was
explicitly decided not to address it (in favor of addressing other, more
critical, needs).

BTW, depended on the details, you could derive the visible type from the
'protected' one, so that you inherit the operations for the protected one.

                    Randy.