From: Maxim Reznik <reznikmm@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Language lawyer question: Limited Views
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2009-01-05T11:32:30-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64a0a282-693a-45c3-aed4-be94a59badc6@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: ae84f74a-3943-4b8b-916a-ca107c07e5b0@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com
On 5 янв, 19:01, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> I suppose the answer is that the RM says that the implicit declaration
> of the limited view contains an "incomplete view" of a type, not an
> actual "type declaration", so the syntax rules having to do with
> declarations don't actually apply since these are not really
> declarations. In any case, I wouldn't worry about it; the limited
> view contains an incomplete view of T. I'm someone who worries a lot
> about the tiniest potential ambiguities in the RM, but even this one
> doesn't concern me at all.
>
> -- Adam
Thanks
I encountered an error in my ASIS implementation, when it complains
about name redeclaration in such case. And I don't know which way to
fix it:
* make only one type declaration/incomplete view, or
* make two implicit declarations, but let one be completion for/or
hide another
That's why I'm asking.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-05 19:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-31 17:59 Language lawyer question: Limited Views Maxim Reznik
2009-01-05 17:01 ` Adam Beneschan
2009-01-05 19:32 ` Maxim Reznik [this message]
2009-01-05 22:20 ` Adam Beneschan
2009-01-06 1:30 ` Randy Brukardt
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox