Re: Language lawyer question: Limited Views

[Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>]

On Dec 31 2008, 9:59 am, Maxim Reznik <rezni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider
> package Pkg is
>    type T;
>    type T is null record;
> end Pkg;
>
> According to 10.1.1(12.3/2)
> "The limited view of a package contains: ... For each type_declaration
> in the visible part, an incomplete view of the type..."
>
> limited view for it would be:
>
> package limited view Pkg is
>    type T;  --  for declaration type T;
>    type T;  --  for declaration type T is null record;
> end Pkg;
>
> Why two implicit declaration of T are allowed here?
> Is second "type T;" completion for first?

I suppose the answer is that the RM says that the implicit declaration
of the limited view contains an "incomplete view" of a type, not an
actual "type declaration", so the syntax rules having to do with
declarations don't actually apply since these are not really
declarations.  In any case, I wouldn't worry about it; the limited
view contains an incomplete view of T.  I'm someone who worries a lot
about the tiniest potential ambiguities in the RM, but even this one
doesn't concern me at all.

                                 -- Adam