CVS difference for ais/ai-00262.txt

Differences between 1.23 and version 1.24
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00262.txt

--- ais/ai-00262.txt	2005/10/31 05:18:20	1.23
+++ ais/ai-00262.txt	2006/01/10 22:17:42	1.24
@@ -3807,4 +3807,66 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Tuesday, January  3, 2006  7:25 AM
+
+It seems somewhat weird that we disallow limited
+withs appearing on a body, but we allow private
+withs to appear there.  It would seem more appropriate
+to allow both private withs and limited withs only
+on (generic) package specs.  Having a private with
+on a body implies the user is pretty confused.
+
+I noticed this while reviewing John Barnes update
+to his "Programming in Ada" text book.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Tuesday, January  3, 2006  7:50 AM
+
+It's a bit strange, but I would not make this change at this late date.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Wednesday, January  4, 2006  3:08 AM
+
+Read The Funny Minutes.
+
+The minutes of the Vienna meeting show that this was discussed, and that
+the justification for allowing "private with" everywhere was that it would
+simplify automatically generated code.  There was a clear consensus on
+this decision: the straw poll was 7-0-1.
+
+It seems to me that the analogy that you draw between "limited with" and
+"private with" is misguided.  Despite the syntactic similarity, the two
+are very different beasts: "private with" gives you normal visibility,
+albeit in a restricted region; "limited with" gives you a very strange
+kind of visibility.  So it's not surprising that there are differences
+between the two.
+
+This is certainly insufficiently broken.  In fact, I am not sure it is
+broken at all...
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: John Barnes
+Sent: Wednesday, January  4, 2006  8:28 AM
+
+When writing the rationale (and my book), I found it quite natural that a
+private with could go on a body.  What I do now find strange is that a
+private with on a body cannot be accompanied by a use clause thus
+
+private with Q; use Q;    -- illegal
+package body P is ..
+
+I can sort of understand the restriction on a spec because a reader might
+feel that the use clause would apply to the visible part  (How about private
+use Q; ??  No John don't make silly suggestions at this stage).
+
+It is OK I think.
+
+****************************************************************
+
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent