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,d927b7ea9b65580a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-09 07:36:53 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uunet!sea.uu.net!sac.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Style: always declare subrountines?
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wccof8yg3h6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:36:05 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <3dccc023$0$304$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30653
Date: 2002-11-09T15:36:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton) writes:

> How do you consider this:
> 
> If one would always declare every subrountine of a package body in the 
> specification (in the public or in the private part) this excludes the
> possibility that one may mistakedly create an internal subrountine with
> the same specification as a not yet implemented public procedure and 
> forget to implement this public procedure and so get wrong program
> behavior.
> 
> Stylistic checkers for always declaring in package specification?

This bug hardly seems likely enough to worry about.

But if you want to do this, put the specs of the internal procedures at
the start of the package *body*, not in the private part.  For one
thing, private parts are not totally private -- child packages can see
them.  For another, putting more stuff in private parts causes more
compile-time costs.

- Bob