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!news4.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!a6202946!not-for-mail From: Jeffrey Carter Organization: jrcarter commercial-at acm [period | full stop] org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Possible Ada deficiency? References: <1104516913.718856.94090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1104544369.712132.159910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1104544369.712132.159910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:37:30 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.240.51.195 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1104547050 4.240.51.195 (Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:37:30 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:37:30 PST Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7366 Date: 2005-01-01T02:37:30+00:00 List-Id: danmcleran@hotmail.com wrote: > There's one problem with this analogy. In C++, a class grants > friendship status to other classes and/or functions. In Ada, a child > package assumes friendship with the parent package whether the parent > likes it or not. This was considered a weakness in C++, that possible friends have to be known when the class is created, or the class has to be modified to allow new friends. The Ada-95 project felt that extensibility was better served by not requiring such a mechanism. > I understand your point about packages vs. tagged types. I still > believe that it would be a good thing to have a mechanism to hide > impelmentation detail from child packages. Otherwise, anyone could > write a package as a child of another and expose a public interface to > the outside world that could change the private area of its parent > package. Not that I necessarily disagree with you. See Carter, J., "Breaking the Ada Privacy Act", /Ada Letters/, 1996 May/Jun. -- Jeff Carter "I've got to stay here, but there's no reason why you folks shouldn't go out into the lobby until this thing blows over." Horse Feathers 50