CVS difference for ais/ai-00164.txt
--- ais/ai-00164.txt 2000/07/15 02:30:00 1.13
+++ ais/ai-00164.txt 2000/08/01 05:39:34 1.14
@@ -19,9 +19,9 @@
!question
An interpretation of E.2.2(9) would deny object-oriented programming
-methodology to distributed Ada programmers by not permitting a remote-
-access-to-class-wide (RACW) type to designate a class-wide private
-extension of limited private type. If this interpretation holds then the
+methodology to distributed Ada programmers by not permitting a
+remote-access-to-class-wide (RACW) type to designate a class-wide private
+extension of limited private type. If this interpretation holds then the
following example is illegal:
package RT is
@@ -67,12 +67,12 @@
There were two issues raised:
- * application of RACW to private extension of limited private type
+ application of RACW to private extension of limited private type;
- * removal of restriction on RACW to private types
+ removal of restriction on RACW to private types.
Regarding the first issue, the intent of E.2.2(9) is not to exclude
-private extensions. The conclusion that E.2.2(9) denies distributed
+private extensions. The conclusion that E.2.2(9) denies distributed
object programming seems unwarranted given that typically the
designated type is most naturally extended in the body of a package
where the distributed/remote object is declared.
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@
Regarding the second issue, if E.2.2(9) is relaxed to allow the type to be
completed in the visible part of the package this would provide additional
capability only to those objects that are to be accessed locally. Thus,
-there is no significant gain in a distributed application. The requirement
+there is no significant gain in a distributed application. The requirement
that the designated type of the remote access-to-class-wide type be limited
private is consistent with that placed upon a file type since in each case
they both provide a handle to some external object.
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent