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: 103376,93dce172c8d3e2fb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Which compiler is correct? Date: 1997/06/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 252763170 Distribution: world References: <33A77C54.5484@bix.com> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > >b) Bad_Obj is _fully_ declared at this point and so will never get the > >implicit declaration of Parent's i component. > > No, that's not quite right. By which you mean that it _will_ get Parent's i component eventually even though it is fully declared here, right? So, being a private declaration is irrelevant. I think that is what I let lead me astray. > >> private > > At *this* point, an "additional characteristic" (see 7.3.1(3-4)) of > Parent.Obj (namely, the existence of I) becomes visible, and since this > is within the immediate scope of Bad_Obj, it gets an I, too. By magic. ^^^^^^^^ ;-). > >I think this all falls out of the rules in 7.3.1, and in particular > >pay close attention to what is said in (3). > > Closer attention than that. ;-) :-). The odd thing is, that going back and reading it just now (and (4)...) after reading your comments here, it seems pretty darn clear and straight-forward. /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari