Re: derived types in package specs

[weyrich@csun1.UUCP (Orville Weyrich)]

From article <8904210606.AA05183@venera.isi.edu>, by blakemor@software.ORG (Alex Blakemore):
 
>   Does anyone have an idea of the rationale behind RM 3.4(15) ?
 
>   This disallows things like
>     type this is new integer;
>     type that is new this;
 
>   and what really hurt was
>     type this is private;
>     that that is new this;

What's wrong with doing the same thing as:
	  type this is new integer;
	  type that is new integer;

and
      type this is private;
	  type that is private;

Certainly in the second example it Ada's restriction is reasonable: would
you want THAT to inherit the (private) invisibility from THIS, or would you 
want THAT to be fully visible?


-- 
Orville R. Weyrich, Jr.          | UUCP    : ...gatech!csun1!weyrich
Department of Computer Science   | INTERNET: weyrich@csun1.cs.uga.edu
University of Georgia            |
Athens, GA 30602 USA             | MA BELL : (404) 542-1082