Re: Stupid question

["Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com>]

On Apr 13, 10:12 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2007 08:35:53 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 1:20 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Are you saying that it is illegal to refer to generic children of generic
> >> packages as generic packages? I don't see where 12.7 states it. 12.7(4):
>
> >> "The generic_package_name shall denote a generic package (the template for
> >> the formal package); the formal package is an instance of the template."
>
> >> A.B is definitely a generic package to me.
>
> > Go back to 4.1.3.  When you're specifying an expanded name, you can't
> > use a prefix unless the prefix denotes a package, or an enclosing
> > named construct.
>
> This does not outlaw A.B, it just cannot. A trivial counter example is:
>
> with A.B;  -- This is 100% legal
>
> With clause is defined in 10.1.2(4) as "with <name>". Here <name> is the
> same as in 12.7. It refers to 4.1 and is resolved to <selected_component>.
>
> Any language lawyers here?

10.1.6(2)

                                 -- Adam