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: <ws9hgpfmeos.fsf@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178295634
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: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert> OK, that makes sense. I had not realized that you (and Bob?)
Robert> were suggesting completely removing the notion of private part
Robert> in Ada 83. [...]

   My point was that "private part = primarily an efficiency hack" is
technically true in Ada 83 (since we can remove it, but I'm not
suggesting it should have been done ;-), but false in Ada 95 where a
private part has an important semantic role in visibility issues.

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby@gnat.com>, Team Ada.
   "Use the Source, Luke. The Source will be with you, always (GPL)."