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,bdf542b1399c1cbe
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Elaboration of nested packages.
Date: 1997/06/19
Message-ID: <EC0434.22@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 251164038
References: <yrQ8RCAF8EqzEwgc@marnhull.demon.co.uk>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <yrQ8RCAF8EqzEwgc@marnhull.demon.co.uk>,
Bill Keen  <billy@marnhull.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>  package PI is new OP.IG; -- Is this ok?

No.  It should raise P_E (in both Adas 83 and 95).

>I can't find a statement corresponding to 11.1-7 in the Ada95 RM. Has
>the meaning of program_error changed in Ada95?

No.  The rule is cleverly hidden (;-)) in 3.11(13-14).

- Bob