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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1450359c2158b496
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Pascal Ledru <Ledru#m#_Pascal@MSMAIL3.HAC.COM>
Subject: Re: Strongly coupled generic children?
Date: 1996/04/24
Message-ID: <317EB299.3403@MSMAIL3.HAC.COM>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 151254473
references: <4lib04$juq@rigel.rz.uni-ulm.de>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Hughes Aircraft Company
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Date: 1996-04-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

What about using a formal package as a parameter of X.Z:

generic
  type P1_Type is private;
package P1 is
  procedure MainProc;
end P1;

generic
package P1.Y is
  procedure Somewhat;
end p1.Y;

with P1.Y;
generic
  with package P1Y is new P1.Y(<>);
package P1.Z is
  procedure DoSomething;
end;

package body P1.Z is
  procedure Dosomething is
  begin
    p1Y.Somewhat;
  end;
end;

with P1;
with P1.Y;
with P1.Z;
package test is

  package I1 is new P1(P1_Type => Integer);

  package I2 is new I1.Y;

  package I3 is new I1.Z(P1Y => I2);

end;