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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,799bdb14b530ce1d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.217.129 with SMTP id oy1mr3294885pbc.3.1349498450751;
        Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.216.202 with SMTP id os10mr1781552pbc.17.1349498450734;
 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 g9ni23679pbh.1!nntp.google.com!kr7no6449007pbb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <84ec72b1-bf3e-4f62-a777-00692fbdd7f9@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=69.20.190.126;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126
References: <99b6ed38-0a44-4649-82b7-0b724fa5e68f@googlegroups.com>
 <5e6b8e61-50c5-4398-9407-60276a070f4f@googlegroups.com>
 <da9d858a-19d2-4135-ae61-cb709418dc6c@googlegroups.com>
 <0135d0d3-3dd3-4b75-a639-76cf93975eb2@googlegroups.com>
 <84ec72b1-bf3e-4f62-a777-00692fbdd7f9@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b6af56ca-3990-4d3d-b438-992edbbb7a5e@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Odd subtyping error.
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 04:40:50 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-10-05T21:40:50-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, October 5, 2012 9:08:07 PM UTC-6, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>=20
>=20
> I think you'll have to move the representation clause out of the private =
part.  This shouldn't have any impact, except on readability (which I ackno=
wledge is important); but as far as I know, there is no case where the lega=
lity or semantics of a program *using* your package is affected by whether =
an enumeration representation clause is in the visible or private part.

Hm, I see; this might make it a bit unacceptable readability-wise -- there'=
s already a LOT of stuff in the non-private portion ~ though as a mitigatin=
g factor, you wouldn't necessarily have to even look in that file to with/u=
se it.

Thank you for the references too, btw.