Re: Children of private compilation units

[dennison@telepath.com]

In article <7if7sg$j6n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:
> In article <37430B99.698B22FB@averstar.com>,
>   Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com> wrote:
> > dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I have a situation where Gnat and ObjectAda are giving me
> conflicting
> > > results.
> >
> > I believe ObjectAda is in the right (see below).
>
> Actually it seems that GNAT is right, and Tuck has agreed with
> this position in a subsequent ARG discussion. This program is
> indeed illegal as it stands. I will let Tuck elucidate :-)

Well, please do so. If the code is indeed illegal, I have a leg to stand
on when I go to the developer and tell him to change it. Telling him to
change it just to make gnat like it and make my life easier is a much
harder sell.

What parituclarly is illegal? Do all children of private packages now
have to be private? Or is it just illegal to "with" a public child of a
private package outside of the source tree rooted at the private parent?

I'll submit a bug report to the appropriate vendor, if I can get a
consensus on who that is. :-)

--
T.E.D.


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---