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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,69fac0ed98e83dcd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Language lawyer question: Limited Views Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 09:01:10 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231174870 28992 127.0.0.1 (5 Jan 2009 17:01:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:01:10 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4178 Date: 2009-01-05T09:01:10-08:00 List-Id: On Dec 31 2008, 9:59 am, Maxim Reznik 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