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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d121cc76e012fcca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kirk@NOSPAM
Subject: Re: Library Level Question
Date: 1999/02/15
Message-ID: <7aam8p$g7i@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 444818007
References: <36c853cb.0@news.pacifier.com> <m3lnhztu9w.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <36c8d860.0@news.pacifier.com>
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://www.newsguy.com]
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <36c8d860.0@news.pacifier.com>, "Steve says...
>
>>But if we have a package inside another, like this:
>>

>>package Book is
>>
>>  package Diagram is
>>
>>  ...
>>  end Diagram;
>>
>>...
>>end Book;
>>
>>
>>then the inner package is _not_ at library level.  The diagram is in the
>>book, not the library.
>>
>

>Thank you, I believe the concept of library level is clear to me now.
>
>If I understand correctly, your example is in slight error in that package
>Diagram is at the library level, but its contents are not.
>
 
huh?

package diagram is NOT at library level. That is the whole point of
the example!

Kirk.