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: 103376,23e3ddd47450e30c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Chris Sparks (Mr. Ada)" <mrada@CATALINA-INTER.NET>
Subject: Re: Ada 95 visibility question
Date: 1997/09/25
Message-ID: <342A7989.219C@catalina-inter.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 275474985
Sender: Ada programming language <INFO-ADA@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Boeing
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert A Duff <bobduff@WORLD.STD.COM> wrote:

> >package body c.f is
> >  procedure p(x:in out file_dialog) is
> >    y:integer;
> >  begin
> >    y:=root(x).peek_a_boo;
> >    y:=x.peek_a_boo;  1/3 of compilers tested complained
>
> This is illegal.  Dialog has a peek_a_boo component implicitly declared
> in the private part of c.d.  There is no place within the immediate
> scope of file_dialog where this private part is visible, so file_dialog
> doesn't declare peek_a_boo.  (It's still there at run time, but you can
> only get at it by doing a type conversion, as shown above.)

Wouldn't peek_a_boo be visible since the types are part of the "c" (no
pun
intended) hierarchy?

Chris Sparks