Re: on OO differnces between Ada95 and C++

[mab@dst17.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)]

In article <4gdidj$10f5@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> ncohen@watson.ibm.com writes:
>   package Parent is
>      type Auxiliary_Type is ...;
>      type P is tagged ...;
>      procedure Op (X: in out P; Y: in Auxiliary_Type);
>      ...
>   end Parent;
>
>   package Parent.Child is
>      type D is new P with ...;
>      procedure Op (X: in out D; Y: in Auxiliary_Type);
>      ...
>   end Parent.Child;
>
>A compilation unit that mentions Parent.Child in a with clause is, in
>effect, really importing a version of Parent with Parent.Child nested
>inside of it, so the declaration of Auxiliary_Type comes along.

Given the above example, is the following code legal, I have been unable to 
determine if it is from the RM95:

with Parent.Child;
package My_Package is

  A: Parent.Child.Auxiliary_Type;  -- or must I say A: Parent.Auxiliary_Type

end My_Package;

If the above is illegal then it presents a problem if I have a library
level renaming of Parent.Child, like so:

package My_Child renames Parent.Child;

with My_Child;
package Foo is

  A: My_Child.Auxiliary_Type; -- LEGAL?

end Foo;

If this type of naming is legal then there is a simple emulation of
Norman's multi-part package proposal using child packages and a library
level rename.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl.loral.com