Re: Generics and Child Packages

[AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>]

On Sunday, August 11, 2013 5:49:06 PM UTC+2, sbelm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Though I still don't buy the "children of a generic are a generic" explanation.  Semantically there is no difference between a nested package and a child package, so any reason for the latter being "officially" generic (i.e. requiring instantiation) should also apply to the former, which it clearly does not.  It's senseless that this should be okay:
> generic
> package P
> private
>    package C is
>       ...
>    end C;
> end P;

With each instantiation, you get a new C.

> but that this should be not:
>
> generic
> package P
>    ...
> end P;
>
> private package P.C is
>    ...
> end P.C;

How should P.C be related to an instantiation of P? P is not a package, only an inst. is a package. Perhaps you could dream up a rule what P.C should be, but it's not obvious.