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-Thread: 103376,8591be732d0fce98
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.250.MISMATCH!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!panix!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada OOP alternatives?
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:04:03 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc1w1k1fek.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <462e0cf4-1d53-4918-b30b-dd3d8df90f1b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <wcctzeq7khi.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <487d9636$0$6543$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <6e5uq2F5g7n6U2@mid.individual.net> <wcciqv56hxs.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <C4A3F84E.F1922%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <wcc3am9gytt.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <C4A45457.F19F4%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <wccy741fg0z.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <c721e61c-464a-4ace-8aa8-7b051794fa7c@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
 <1y046u74vmwh3.19jm2fcdx5xpt.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1216847043 27922 192.74.137.71 (23 Jul 2008 21:04:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:04:03 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TQlA37F3znFDXN4fjLnhxF7PgxU=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1294
Date: 2008-07-23T17:04:03-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
>> This would make
>> it possible to dispense with private parts and put all of the
>> "private" stuff into package bodies.
>
> Hmm, I would consider private declarations rather as a private interface.

If what currently goes in the private part were moved to the body, then
child package bodies would need visibility on their parent's body.

- Bob