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!news2.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 15:44:05 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccr5ovpiei.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>
 <1qttzk1jbh24i$.xid2h7me3oec.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccr5ovkb9f.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <C795E90F.13585C%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1265661830 17484 192.74.137.71 (8 Feb 2010 20:43:50
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:43:50 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uwTcdpq8WGYbbR1KBq87Z2tWFuU=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8995
Date: 2010-02-08T15:44:05-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> Strangely, LIS, his ancestor of Ada, did not do this but had distinct,
> separately compiled, interface, representation, and algorithm parts for the
> LIS equivalent of packages.

Interesting.  I don't know anything about LIS.

> I wonder what the rationale was for merging the first two. I suspect
> compiler efficiency worries, valid at the time, that now are obsolete.

I wonder, too.  I don't buy the "compiler efficiency" worries.
That might explain why private parts exist, but it doesn't
explain why they can't be separately compiled (i.e. stored
in separate source files).

I'd eliminate them altogether, though.

- Bob