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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b8b8a54001adc4d2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: danmcleran@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Possible Ada deficiency?
Date: 9 Jan 2005 19:05:10 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1105326310.929175.15380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <1104516913.718856.94090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
   <iwhBd.13518$RH4.6189@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
   <1104544963.930877.75170@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <mailman.20.1104593462.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
   <1104595073.731663.180100@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <q-adnWfRjf5PS0TcRVn-oQ@megapath.net>
   <gemini.i9yj3c0051not02as.nick.roberts@acm.org>
   <HOadnQBnqp4TYkPcRVn-hA@megapath.net>
   <gemini.i9zcaz0011wbv02h4.nick.roberts@acm.org>
   <wccwtun9481.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
   <1105291405.372539.233570@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <wcc8y72o5qw.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.156.150.115
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1105326315 9915 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2005 03:05:15
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:05:15 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=172.156.150.115;
   posting-account=LSix6gsAAACmBFWMCbh6syCaua0lawvj
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7596
Date: 2005-01-09T19:05:10-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I believe you are referring to separate compilation. If so, no separate
compilation does not bother me. I don't think that this is the same
thing. I also don't believe that requiring the parent package to
declare child packages is desirable, since the declared child packages
would still have full visibility into the parent package. I still
believe that the ability to hide information from all child packages is
a desireable feature. That way, whatever one wants child packages to
see can be declared private. If one wants to hide some implementation
detail from child packages, the one could declare them 'concealed'.

The best thing about this proposed feature is, if you don't want to
use it, then don't. It would not affect any current code.