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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: 'Protected' abstract subprograms
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:11:03 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcck3e18he0.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <839fee13-2743-49f6-a7f3-f95578386201@googlegroups.com>
 <lapsb1$k1l$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <b7ef903a-26f8-4cbc-b137-0f35fe5be406@googlegroups.com>
 <lb2bsl$phh$1@loke.gir.dk> <on1zhsdlciqw.70mg9osrtb80$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <lb4l5t$299$1@loke.gir.dk> <1aav8alqsnqqv.5urmifgwh1mv.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1389795063 28780 192.74.137.71 (15 Jan 2014 14:11:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:11:03 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JVToeCggkk7zXMvdJ4RcEC69+9c=
X-Received-Bytes: 3177
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3197731403
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:18181
Date: 2014-01-15T09:11:03-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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

> Hmm, of course they can and do. Do you mean legality of public part not
> depending on the legality of private parts? Even they do.

I think the principle is:

    The private part cannot affect the legality of clients.

It seems like a good principle, but it is violated all over the place.
Search for "see 12.3" in the RM to find a bunch.  For example:

    generic
       type Formal is tagged limited private;
    package A is
    private
       task type T;
       type Derived is new Formal with record
         Limited_Component: T;
       end record;
    end;

    with A;
    package B is
       type Actual is tagged null record;
       package Instance is new A(Actual);
    end;

Package B is illegal, because of something going on the private
part of A -- without Limited_Component it would be legal.
With Limited_Component, B.Instance.Derived is a nonlimited type
with a limited component, which is illegal.

I think maybe this is an indication that Ada's macro-expansion model
of generics is a wrong approach.

> Yep, that's what I meant under "cooperative" privacy. For many
> applications, and the number of is growing rapidly, a "non-cooperative"
> privacy is needed as well.

Well, in a language that allows Unchecked_Conversion, address clauses,
machine code inserts, etc., I don't see any way to achieve
non-cooperative privacy within a single process.  You can achieve it
in Ada via remote procedure calls, though.

> Just one trivial example of slack privacy. You cannot hide default values:
> 
>    type T is private;

If you have:

    function V return T;

then the default value is hidden.

>    procedure Foo (X : T := V);
> private
>    type T is ...
> 
> Should have been something like:
> 
>    type T is private;
>    procedure Foo (X : T := <>); -- The value is deferred
> private
>    type T is ...
>    for Foo'Default (X) use V; -- Here it is, whichever syntax you prefer

I don't see a need for any such feature.

- Bob