Re: Generic package parameters not externally visible : what's the rational ?

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 31 oct, 10:14, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> Note that a generic child package can use formals of its parent. That is
> the case why your proposal about visibility is so important in my eyes. It
> is an *obvious* language bug.

A step to the side, still related to your comment ...

Although related by derivation, my packages were all along each others
(I'm experimenting, so I try many things before I choose and know
why). I've started to rework all package, to use child package when
possible.

It seems it saves a lot to do so : shared generic parameters, so less
generic parameters needed for instantiation.

I would like to say I feel (from higher to lower importance) child are
nice for :
1) Shared privates subset (formally required)
2) Generics (not formally required, but may save a lot of stuff)
3) Mapping domain organization (nice, but not really required,
although useful)
?) I'm still wondering about child packages and derivations (another
subject opened about it).

Generic package hierarchy is nicer than I previously supposed