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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kst@thomsoft.com (Keith Thompson) Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard Date: 1996/09/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 179048309 sender: news@thomsoft.com (USENET News Admin @flash) x-nntp-posting-host: pulsar references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <503sbo$j45@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <507akg$t9u@krusty.irvine.com> <50q1b8$1c0a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Thomson Software Products, San Diego, CA, USA newsgroups: comp.lang.ada originator: kst@pulsar Date: 1996-09-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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