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 Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!xmission!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Package's private parts and protected types Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:56:07 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <7ff3810f-3ee3-4f39-a54c-933ad7d0655c@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com> <1v2la97s2yyvd.1rcy0ana8mver.dlg@40tude.net> <3bb38996-47f7-4f30-8255-f011501404b5@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <1qttzk1jbh24i$.xid2h7me3oec.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 1265727355 20601 192.74.137.71 (9 Feb 2010 14:55:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:55:55 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:5nL1DZFS/pNq6Gwd4N6EhB0mMBk= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9038 Date: 2010-02-09T09:56:07-05:00 List-Id: AdaMagica 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