Re: Stupid question

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

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?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de