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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard
Date: 1996/09/09
Message-ID: <511cvg$h8u@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 179477885
distribution: world
references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <Dx05yF.Jpo@world.std.com>
 <dewar.841529656@schonberg> <50q1b8$1c0a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
 <DxC1Lv.BtL@world.std.com>
organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <DxC1Lv.BtL@world.std.com>, bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
writes: 

|> In article <50q1b8$1c0a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
|> Norman H. Cohen <ncohen@watson.ibm.com> wrote: 
|> >Surely that could also be explained away as a "source representation
|> >issue":  A with clause in a .adp file (a separately compiled private
|> >part) is just a representation of the identical with clause appearing on
|> >the entire package spec.
|>
|> But what if the private part says "with P", but the visible part
|> references P?  Ada says this is legal, but one would expect it to be
|> illegal.

One would only expect it to be illegal if he had not read gnatinfo.txt
carefully. ;-)

(I am referring, of course, to a hypothetical version of gnatinfo.txt
that would describe this hypothetical change to GNAT's treatment of with
clauses.)

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com