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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,69fac0ed98e83dcd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maxim Reznik <reznikmm@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Language lawyer question: Limited Views
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <64a0a282-693a-45c3-aed4-be94a59badc6@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <b18f1b31-3795-4acf-8027-1f70c798bc32@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
	<ae84f74a-3943-4b8b-916a-ca107c07e5b0@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.154.201.133
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231183950 24473 127.0.0.1 (5 Jan 2009 19:32:30
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:32:30 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com; posting-host=213.154.201.133;
	posting-account=K1cP1QoAAAD_GR6kW2Td0NqGqGBLRE8h
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; ru-RU; rv:1.8.1.1)
	Gecko/20061208 Firefox/2.0.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4179
Date: 2009-01-05T11:32:30-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 5 =D1=CE=D7, 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.