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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_How_to_get_Ada_to_=e2=80=9ccross_the_chasm=e2=80=9d?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=3f?=
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 17:16:05 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <pifofk$1nlk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <1c73f159-eae4-4ae7-a348-03964b007197@googlegroups.com>
 <878t9nemrl.fsf@nightsong.com>
 <d64089d4-af9d-43d9-b72b-a73d3fff1f00@googlegroups.com>
 <bf8f8498-f017-47dd-bf1f-188c7ceb5b28@googlegroups.com>
 <62df3c25-057c-4cc5-a899-b91413613b83@googlegroups.com>
 <pici0g$svr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <7306c5a4-7810-4e5d-9896-124b9841832b@googlegroups.com>
 <7147d726-65bf-4bda-8a6b-bc858a65a42a@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3CrKQyqWAJZHy6zYVP/kUg.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53826
Date: 2018-07-15T17:16:05+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2018-07-15 16:32, AdaMagica wrote:
> Am Samstag, 14. Juli 2018 16:28:16 UTC+2 schrieb Shark8:
>> * Protected objects (What's in the private section ought to be the body, IMO.)
>>         protected type Signal_Object is
>>            entry Wait;
>>            procedure Signal;
>>            function Is_Open return Boolean;
>>         private
>>            Open : Boolean := False; -- WHY ARE WE EXPOSING THIS?
>>         end Signal_Object;
> 
> Where is the problem? I don't see one. It's not more exposed than
> 
> package P is
>    type X is private;
> private
>    type X is record
>      I: Integer;
>    end record;
> end P;

Yes, but it does not feel right. It is OK when protected type is a 
compilation unit. It is not OK when it is nested. BTW, it is not OK for 
nested packages either:

    package A is
       package P is
          type X is private;
       private
          type X is record
             I: Integer;
          end record;
       end P;
    end A;

I would prefer something like:

    package A is
       package P is
          type X is private;
       end P;
    private
       package private P is
          type X is record
             I: Integer;
          end record;
       end P;
    end A;

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de