Re: Redefining Integer Type ...

["Pat Rogers" <progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com>]

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:wccn1g2cnfb.fsf@world.std.com...
> Arnaud de Muyser <ademuyser@attol-testware.com> writes:
>
> > I've a little question about operator "+" resolution into
> > the following pack2-proc.adb procedure.
> > Why the resolved type (by gnat) is standard.integer whereas
> > the visible type named Integer is pack.integer (using use clause).
>
> Names from outer scopes always take precedence over use-visible
names.
> Everything is nested within Standard.  So in your example,
> Standard.Integer hides Pack.Integer.
>
> I don't like that rule -- it's error prone, as you can see.
> Hiding considered harmful.

But there is a benefit to the rule that use-visible names don't hide
names that are already visible -- a use clause added later won't
change the meaning of an existing bit of code.  Granted it can be
confusing with the names declared within Standard, but overall it
seems worth the price, especially given that declaring names identical
to those in Standard seems confusing anyway.

---
Patrick Rogers                      Consulting and Training in:
http://www.classwide.com      Deadline Schedulability Analysis
progers@classwide.com        Software Fault Tolerance
(281)648-3165                       Real-Time/OO Languages

Adam ... does not deserve all the credit; much is due to Eve, the
first woman, and Satan, the first consultant.
Mark Twain