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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,63ed09fc54092c73 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.68.226.168 with SMTP id rt8mr320410pbc.8.1359507124454; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:52:04 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.207.100 with SMTP id lv4mr527492igc.1.1359507124253; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:52:04 -0800 (PST) Path: 6ni24044pbd.1!nntp.google.com!ld4no1617513pbb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:52:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <6d66d1c4-ed22-446b-a9d7-dc806ae1ef8f@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <11f519a9-4516-46b1-829f-95c256b81508@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: When is a rename not a rename? From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:52:04 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-01-29T16:52:03-08:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:28:29 PM UTC-8, Randy Brukardt wrote: > What else could it mean? We don't want to be ignoring "with" clauses in o= ne=20 > rarely used case, so it has to cause a semantic dependence here. >=20 > And this doesn't have anything to do with the rename per-se; this is a=20 > compilation unit like any other (that happens to be a rename), and it is = the=20 > compilation unit that has this effect, not the rename. I always think of = all=20 > compilation units as packages (imagining an invisible package wrapping=20 > anything that isn't a normal package), and when you do that, this makes= =20 > plenty of sense. Yes... it just requires me to change my thinking a little bit about what a = "rename" means. I thought it set up a synonym, but in the case of a librar= y-level rename it isn't quite true; thinking about it as a wrapper makes mo= re sense. It's just a bit surprising, and I was curious whether this was s= omething that was considered when the semantics were defined in Ada 95. =20 And no, I wouldn't have wanted "with" clauses to be ignored, but the langua= ge could have made "with" clauses on library-level renames illegal except f= or "with" clauses that denoted the renamed unit or an ancestor or a unit on= which the renamed unit's specification depends semantically, or something = along those lines. Not that I'm proposing any such change now. -- Adam