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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dbf84a1c2794f4fb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: packages and private parts
Date: 1997/02/07
Message-ID: <32FB632E.7973@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 215311665
references: <32F1A8AD.6D6C@ehs.ericsson.se>
 <E4wBxD.Jtp.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <32FA579B.2496@watson.ibm.com>
 <E58onv.4zC@world.std.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: ELCA Matrix SA
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Date: 1997-02-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> >Unfortunately, the price for this is an annoying restriction (RM
> >10.1.1(16)) against declaring an ordinary package as a child of a
> >generic-package instance.
> 
> Why do you consider that restriction "annoying"?  I can't remember ever
> wanting to violate it...

I consider it annoying because if I write a child P.C of some package P,
and the author of P later decides that his package should be generalized
and creates Generic_P, replacing the original P with

   package P is new Generic_P(...);

then my child package P.C becomes illegal. And that is bad because to
make it legal, I have to make it a generic child of Generic_P and thus
do the same generalization as was done for P, which I may not always be
able to do.