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: 103376,7112e553a3bbd8d7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Q re static deferred constants
Date: 1997/07/17
Message-ID: <EDGwun.KKM@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 257864032
References: <33CDB52B.25FE@bix.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <33CDB52B.25FE@bix.com>, Tom Moran  <tmoran@bix.com> wrote:
>Given:
>package p is 
>  type T is new Integer;
>  x : constant T;
>private
>  x : constant T := 1;
>
>Is p.x static?  ie, can another package use p.x for a 'when' in a case
>statement?

No.

If X were static, then this would constitute a violation of privacy.  It
should not be possible to make a modification to a private part that
causes clients to become illegal.  If X were static, then such
modifications would be possible.

On the other hand, inside the package body, or anywhere else where that
private part is visible (child packages) X is of course static.

A good compiler will take advantage of the compile-time-known value 1,
despite the fact that X is not static (when viewed from outside).  But
that's a code-generation issue, not a legality issue.

- Bob