Re: Package's private parts and protected types

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

AdaMagica <christoph.grein@eurocopter.com> writes:

> OK, but then you have a similar problem to Ada83's syntactically
> unneeded bodies which Ada95 solved with a pragma.

I think that problem is an illusion.  There was a problem,
but it was a problem with implementations, not with the
language.  How do we know if a given package spec has
a body?  Simple: look on the disk and see if there's
a source file containing that body.  In GNAT, that would
mean looking for foo.adb.

> How would you specify that there is a syntactically unneeded private
> part (i.e. when there is no private type in the spec)?

Same way.  And as I said, my preference would be to eliminate
private parts altogether.

> I guess your ideas about specs, bodies, child packages and visibility
> are very different from Ada as she is. You'd like a different girl,
> wouldn't you;-)

Girl?  Heh.

Ada is my favorite programming language (of the ones that exist
in the real world).  The changes I've suggested are minor
improvements.  So no, not "very different".

And of course it's all fantasy -- I'm not seriously suggesting
Ada should be changed in incompatible ways!

- Bob