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-Thread: 103376,b8b8a54001adc4d2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:46:41 -0600 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1104516913.718856.94090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1104622090.271236.286730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Possible Ada deficiency? Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:48:18 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-oZCoSesk/k6zt5k8I5wUNkDlf14v0NFAtA2N2sxeiS2o5TyvFZazZAyaa/33Tx98BIDj2wDf/adCRcK!COv3gRWtIYldSgEZ+5eSBwln3Y0wHNc5qzf6K23O2/gAGUH+zuVgaoEvLOAIgt1CEb0x5wQNQjdT X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.22 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7419 Date: 2005-01-03T17:48:18-06:00 List-Id: wrote in message news:1104622090.271236.286730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... ... > In my example, notice that the derived type in the child package can > change the private area, whereas the derived type in the non-child > package cannot. Right, that's the whole idea. You don't want to be declaring child packages willy-nilly. You only do it when you want access to the private part. About the only language change I could imagine making sense would be a pragma No_Children. (The visibility and usage costs of a third kind of declaration are too much.) But I suspect that most of the time, someone would find they had to remove the pragma for one reason or another. (Another idea explored very briefly was "separate" private types: type P is separate private; where the full declaration was given in the body. That wasn't seriously considered, because Ada compilers take full advantage of the fact that the size of types are fully known by the end of the package specification. To change that would be a major disruption in the implementations, and the gain wasn't considered worth it.) Randy.