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: 103376,69fac0ed98e83dcd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Language lawyer question: Limited Views
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <175edca4-9aeb-4e91-b693-e163fc8ec5d8@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <b18f1b31-3795-4acf-8027-1f70c798bc32@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
	<ae84f74a-3943-4b8b-916a-ca107c07e5b0@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<64a0a282-693a-45c3-aed4-be94a59badc6@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231194059 23321 127.0.0.1 (5 Jan 2009 22:20:59
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:20:59 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
	posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12)
	Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3213
Date: 2009-01-05T14:20:59-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jan 5, 11:32 am, Maxim Reznik <rezni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 =D1=CE=D7, 19:01, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
>
> > I suppose the answer is that the RM says that the implicit declaration
> > of the limited view contains an "incomplete view" of a type, not an
> > actual "type declaration", so the syntax rules having to do with
> > declarations don't actually apply since these are not really
> > declarations.  In any case, I wouldn't worry about it; the limited
> > view contains an incomplete view of T.  I'm someone who worries a lot
> > about the tiniest potential ambiguities in the RM, but even this one
> > doesn't concern me at all.
>
> >                                  -- Adam
>
> Thanks
> I encountered an error in my ASIS implementation, when it complains
> about name redeclaration in such case. And I don't know which way to
> fix it:
>  * make only one type declaration/incomplete view, or
>  * make two implicit declarations, but let one be completion for/or
> hide another
>
> That's why I'm asking.


I'm not really sure what you're trying to do.  But note that if you
create a "limited view" by replacing visible type declarations with
incomplete type declarations, the result will not be legal Ada in any
case, since incomplete types are supposed to have completions, in an
Ada package, but the "limited view" has a lot of incomplete types
without completions.  So if some program accepts some things in a
limited view that aren't legal in Ada, it shouldn't be an issue to
have it accept one more thing, such as a redeclaration.  This may or
may not be relevant to your question, since I really have no idea what
you're trying to accomplish.

                               -- Adam