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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,b6e97963d32ee242 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-22 09:02:40 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!freenix!gitoyen!news.completel.fr!ciril.fr!cines.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!news.ens-lyon.fr!news.imag.fr!not-for-mail From: Xavier Nicollin Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The old "Object.Method" syntax debate Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 18:02:39 +0200 Organization: Institut IMAG, Grenoble Message-ID: <3ECCF49F.24B09479@imag.fr> References: <254c16a.0305210726.485125de@posting.google.com> <3ECBA778.4070909@crs4.it> <3ECC9B36.514A9B35@imag.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: moucherotte.imag.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: trompette.imag.fr 1053619359 31082 129.88.43.82 (22 May 2003 16:02:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@imag.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 16:02:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:37647 Date: 2003-05-22T18:02:39+02:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > > Xavier Nicollin writes: > > > [...] > > package A_Package is > > > > type A_Type is tagged record > > A_Name : Integer; > > end record; > > > > function A_Name (Obj : A_Type) return Integer; > > > > end A_Package; > > > > with A_Package; use A_Package; > > ... > > Obj : A_Type; > > N : Integer := Obj.A_Name; > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > This is currently perfectly legal, but I guess it would be refused > > by any compiler with the change in effect. > > No. As I said, the ARG would never seriously consider such an > incompatible change. Indeed. I was only a bit confused, and had not read the AI. > [...] > > AI-252 addresses this issue by using visibility rules similar to > use clauses. See the AI if you want to know the details. I have read it now, and it is clear: the direct visibility of the "A_Name" component would hide the "use"-like visibility of the "A_Name" operation, so my example would still be legal, and would behave as before. Sorry for wasting bandwidth! > If you find any mistakes (such as cases where the AI introduces an > incompatibility), please let the ARG know! I sure would, but I doubt I will find any... Well, I found a typo in the example, but I guess it's not worth wasting the ARG's time! -- | Xavier NICOLLIN (mailto:Xavier.Nicollin@imag.fr) -- INPG (ENSIMAG) | VERIMAG -- Centre Equation -- 2, ave. de Vignate -- F-38610 Gi�res