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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: guerby@gnat.com (Laurent Guerby) Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard Date: 1996/09/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 178121650 sender: guerby@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> organization: New York University reply-to: guerby@gnat.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert> Laurent, I think you are confused. The "hack" that Bob is Robert> referring to is the fact that the private part is part of the Robert> spec, or more precisely that the clients of the package have a Robert> dependency on the private part (since as I pointed out Robert> previously, it is perfectly fine to put the private part in Robert> the same file as the body). I was refering to the fact that in Ada 83, put aside efficiency issues, you could have completly removed the notion of private part, and put everything in the body without changing (too much) the language, since nothing can gain visibility to the body (or to the private part), so this private part could be considered as part of the body. But in Ada 95, the visibilty model has been refined and child units have visibility to something in the parent which is not the public part, so you cannot remove this notion of private part without changing the language (disallowing child units, or giving them full visibilty to the body). Putting the private part elsewhere doesn't change the fact that this notion has to exist for other reasons than efficiency in Ada 95 (together with public and body). -- Laurent Guerby , Team Ada. "Use the Source, Luke. The Source will be with you, always (GPL)."