Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard

[kst@thomsoft.com (Keith Thompson)]

In <50q1b8$1c0a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) writes:
> Surely that could also be explained away as a "source representation
> issue":  A with clause in a .adp file (a separately compiled private
> part) is just a representation of the identical with clause appearing on
> the entire package spec.

I don't think it's quite that simple.  For example, is the following
legal?

foo.ads:

    package Foo is
        type My_Address is new System.Address;  -- ?

foo.adp:

    with System;
    private
        -- ...
    end Foo;

If the language really supported separately compiled private parts, a
with clause on the private part would not apply to the visible part.
If it's interpreted as a "source representation", it does apply.
(I suppose the compiler could issue a warning for cases like this.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@thomsoft.com <*>
TeleSoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsys^H^H^H^H^H Thomson Software Products
10251 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 300, San Diego, CA, USA, 92121-2718
"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet
deserves the highest protection from government intrusion." -- ACLU v. Reno