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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,13aaae984988cb0d
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_Hibou57?= <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Discriminant and type extensions
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 23:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <8e6cbd59-03d2-4152-9585-7b6a97916f55@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <2b205c63-55e7-4cef-95d2-5b0ece0b8866@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
	<wccljjp609m.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <a98221d7-9579-4613-8522-3abed7b94181@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.198.58.110
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1255069760 28504 127.0.0.1 (9 Oct 2009 06:29:20
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 06:29:20 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=77.198.58.110;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8630
Date: 2009-10-08T23:29:20-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 6 oct, 00:15, Yannick Duch=EAne Hibou57 <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
> For procedures and functions, the Renames clause may do the thing
> (explicitly re-introducing procedures and functions in the scope), but
> for discriminants in this kind of context, I do not know a way.
> Perhaps I do not know it, or perhaps this may be a candidate proposal.

While this can be a bit dangerous too. Today I've faced an
unintelligible confusing bug. It was due to erroneously edited copy/
paste done while importing some entities in a current scope from the
scope of an instantiated packages.

If only there was a way to check that both parts of a rename clause
use the same name. Like checking that in =93 NameX Declaration renames
PackageY.NameX =94 both NameX are the same.

Is it a famous practice ? If it is enough, a syntax to check it, based
on existing reserve words would not be syntactic sugar, this would be
really useful check.

Why not reuse the For/Use pre-existing keywords ? To have something
like =93 for NameX Declaration use PackageY.NameX =94. This may not
conflict with a representation clause. Or it may ?