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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.180.75.13 with SMTP id y13mr3815809wiv.1.1376236146683;
 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.127.207 with SMTP id ni15mr537249qeb.15.1376236146263;
 Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!g3no22160744wic.0!news-out.google.com!cc8ni16563wib.1!nntp.google.com!el7no18308310wib.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <d717e583-7238-439e-b60e-c3d0f2177640@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.53.78.59;
 posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.53.78.59
References: <d717e583-7238-439e-b60e-c3d0f2177640@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <79ec97f1-b5f8-4b12-b351-262fad685f50@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Generics and Child Packages
From: sbelmont700@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:49:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Original-Bytes: 2328
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182965
Date: 2013-08-11T08:49:06-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Thank you both for your response.  I've ended up splitting all packages int=
o separate, unrelated packages that are all generic on all the (common) typ=
es, and then having the parent just be instantiations of the others.  This =
obviously isn't a perfect solution, as the private data is still technicall=
y accessible (in that nothing stops a client from instantiating his own ver=
sion of the private data), and of course it's a whole lot of meaningless ty=
ping, but I guess it's the best of a bad situation.

Though I still don't buy the "children of a generic are a generic" explanat=
ion.  Semantically there is no difference between a nested package and a ch=
ild 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;

but that this should be not:

generic
package P
   ...
end P;

private package P.C is
   ...
end P.C;

when you consider there is no (conceptual) difference.

-sb