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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,63ed09fc54092c73
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.17.140 with SMTP id s12mr8335729qaa.3.1359825061826;
        Sat, 02 Feb 2013 09:11:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.49.58.140 with SMTP id r12mr1441480qeq.35.1359825061788;
 Sat, 02 Feb 2013 09:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 k2ni4867qap.0!nntp.google.com!p13no9833380qai.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 09:11:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <wccsj5ehjwm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=69.153.54.159;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.153.54.159
References: <6d66d1c4-ed22-446b-a9d7-dc806ae1ef8f@googlegroups.com>
 <f4d3708d-d17c-4e53-8f45-f9ac6f64ee54@googlegroups.com>
 <coikrsq8nv3b$.1xcqe2olg7bpv$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5ab43474-0ce2-425c-836b-ff4c97587958@googlegroups.com>
 <8f7b509f-c92d-48b0-8322-cdc48baf4846@googlegroups.com>
 <18239154-6753-455c-b00e-4caf876e03ff@googlegroups.com>
 <wccsj5ehjwm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4daac118-adf3-4db5-8115-dd5a5c9c9f28@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: When is a rename not a rename?
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 17:11:01 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2013-02-02T09:11:01-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 8:26:01 AM UTC-6, Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> A similar example:  Suppose we have:
> 
>     X : constant T := Some_Package.X;
> 
> And suppose both X's are potentially use-visible at some
> place.  You might want to be able to refer to X.  (Currently,
> the X's hide each other, and I doubt that's going to change.)

Shouldn't the compiler complain of ambiguity and force a fully-qualified referral in that case? (Though you could 'promote' one's visibility to 'default' via renames in the current compilation-unit's context.)