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: a07f3367d7,cb04cee6116c8ced
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Package's private parts and protected types
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:06:27 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcciqa7k8zg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <7ff3810f-3ee3-4f39-a54c-933ad7d0655c@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>
 <e89844fd-9f16-40a1-821a-177d4f02caf4@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <1v2la97s2yyvd.1rcy0ana8mver.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3bb38996-47f7-4f30-8255-f011501404b5@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <wccwrynkc7p.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <st8eadlq3kf7.7juq3mdsl2ca.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 1265645174 25205 192.74.137.71 (8 Feb 2010 16:06:14
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:06:14 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:USm/19tYZPT2zfAH/tJGc7G7/1s=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8986
Date: 2010-02-08T11:06:27-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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

> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:56:42 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:
>
>> However, I think you can get the hiding you want by using
>> a protected or synchronized interface.
>
> Right, it is better now with Ada 2005.
>
> Nevertheless it is not too late to add the "standard" Ada syntax for task
> and protected types declarations leaving the old one supported for
> compatibility reasons. I mean
>
> type T is task { private | record ... };
> type S is protected { private | record ... };

What were they thinking?!  The "task type T is..." syntax
is so obviously broken.  The protected syntax just copied
that mistake, so it's not a mistake by itself.

Unfortunately, we can't simplify the language by replacing
the old syntax -- as you say, it's needed for compatibility.

- Bob