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!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: danmcleran@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Possible Ada deficiency?
Date: 11 Jan 2005 12:37:54 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1105475874.073304.302190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
References: <1104516913.718856.94090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
   <wccy8f4orfp.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
   <1105290947.422412.195950@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <PbfEd.2632$pZ4.1560@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
   <1105327217.641306.80180@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
   <wcc7jml3p6t.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.55.20.36
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1105475878 3168 127.0.0.1 (11 Jan 2005 20:37:58
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:37:58 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <wcc7jml3p6t.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.55.20.36;
   posting-account=LSix6gsAAACmBFWMCbh6syCaua0lawvj
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7653
Date: 2005-01-11T12:37:54-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>I've no idea what you're replying to here,

What I'm replying to is the argument that additional visibility
restrictions aren't warranted because anyone can change the code to
change the visibility. That seems like a pretty silly argument. If one
takes this to the logical extreme, what's the point of having any
information hiding capabilities at all? Couldn't someone always just
change the code and change the visibility? Of course they could.

>but note that the point of
>the visibility rules is documentation

I don't buy this at all. I don't believe that the sole reason for
visibility rules is documentation. There's obviously an intent to
provide some information hiding and separation of interface from
implementation.