Re: Forward Declaration in Pkg Body

From: <fitzjarrell_at_cox.net>
Date: 15 Dec 2006 11:12:33 -0800
Message-ID: <1166207862.809058.96420@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>

klabu wrote:

> <fitzjarrell_at_cox.net>

> > klabu wrote:
> >> <fitzjarrell_at_cox.net>
> >> > Normally that would be done in the package specification, not the
> >> > package body.
> >> >
> >> > And, no, there isn't anything 'wrong' with that practice.
> >>
> >>
> >> I said ---- "local modules" --- i.e. the ones you do NOT want to expose
> >> externally.
> >> If your statement is still the same regardless,
> >> then I do not agree, you don't just put every bit of code in the spec.
> >> That is why "Forward Declaration" is there IMO.
> >
> > Where did I say in my response it was an *absolute* to put them ONLY in
> > the package specification? You assume too much from what is written.
> > "Normally" means, to my mind, the *usual* course of action in declaring
> > such modules. Certainly there will be exceptions, and I made *no*
> > statement to indicate otherwise.
> >
> >
> > David Fitzjarrell
> >

>
> where did I say you said "it was an *absolute* to put them ONLY...." ?  ;)
>
> alright, let me re-state the original q:
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Is there anything wrong with FORWARD-DECALRING ALL LOCAL modules in package
> body --- the ones I do NOT and (logically should NOT) want to expose in spec
> --- whether I really "need" to or not
> so that I don't have to worry about their sequence in the package body ?
>
> 10gR2

Let me repost the last line of my original response, one you failed to read, apparently:

"And, no, there isn't anything 'wrong' with that practice."

Which answers your question. It is a shame you read too much into what is posted.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Fri Dec 15 2006 - 13:12:33 CST