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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,12d893e9461dcfe6,start
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.82.226 with SMTP id l2mr1184898wiy.1.1344263339182;
        Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.77.3 with SMTP id o3mr1118009paw.13.1344262791219;
        Mon, 06 Aug 2012 07:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 q11ni72442439wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feed-C.news.volia.net!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!7no2052427wig.0!news-out.google.com!p10ni23457278pbh.1!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!novia!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.130.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.panservice.it!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!news.szaf.org!news.gnuher.de!news.enyo.de!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Access to generic formal parameters in an generic package
 instantiation
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:16:00 +0200
Message-ID: <87a9yi5t7j.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: news.enyo.de 1343585759 16412 172.17.135.6 (29 Jul 2012 18:15:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@enyo.de
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lttxTI+AmeUVIw4M58dphzdzqKE=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2012-07-29T20:16:00+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

If G is a generic package and P is one of its formal parameters, it is
legal to refer to G.P where G is visible?  Does this depend on the
kind of entity, or whether the formal part uses <>?

Has anybody tried to use generic formal packages to emulate Standard
ML signatures?  Is it possible to express SML "where" constraints,
that is, specify that two types in two formal packages are the same,
without break down the formal packages to their components?

It seems that generic formal packages are unusual because GNAT shows
some strange effects (and the occasional bug box).