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-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7eaf9f2597de2259
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-10 01:05:06 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pipehawk.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: john.mccabe@emrad.com.nospam (John McCabe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it?
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:04:10 GMT
Organization: Emrad Ltd
Message-ID: <3bc3ffb5.826258@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <9pif1o01btl@drn.newsguy.com> <3BBD12F1.9BED0B70@acm.org>
 <x7vpu81jf1b.fsf@smaug.pushface.org> <3BC0B1D4.21C79A8@acm.org>
 <ud73ymbha.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <mailman.1002557530.12599.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3bc1d137.20930256@news.demon.co.uk>
 <mailman.1002613333.31206.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1002701061 nnrp-01:21333 NO-IDENT
 pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14119
Date: 2001-10-10T08:04:10+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 09:41:45 +0200, Francisco Javier Loma Daza
<Francisco.Loma@isotrol.com> wrote:

>
>>  John McCabe wrote:
>> 
>> Try this naming convention using generic instantiation of a generic
>> child package. As far as I can remember, there are serious problems
>> with attempting this, hence my comment earlier on this thread.
>> 
>
>Could you elaborate please? I use this naming convention in my diploma
>project, and it works rather well for me.

I'm trying to get hold of one - it was actually a colleague at my old
job who discovered the problem but he hasn't found his example yet :-)

I believe the problem occurs if you have something like:

generic
   ....
package Parent is
   type Object is tagged
      record
         ...
      end record;

   procedure Op_1 (This : in Object);
end Parent;

then

with Parent;
generic
   ...
package Parent.Child is
   type Object is new Parent.Object with
      record
         ...
      end record;

   procedure Op_1 (This : in Object);
end Parent.Child;

It may be a scoping issue because in Parent.Child you have direct
visibilty of the 'Object' type in Parent. It may not be a problem at
this point, but possibly when another 'class' instantiates both of
these packages.

If/when I get a firm example I'll let you know.