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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.236.20.234 with SMTP id p70mr1464185yhp.46.1427274832394;
        Wed, 25 Mar 2015 02:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.227.163 with SMTP id sb3mr76076obc.23.1427274832359;
 Wed, 25 Mar 2015 02:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!z107no4695237qgd.0!news-out.google.com!db6ni62798igc.0!nntp.google.com!z20no4677269igj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 02:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mets99$ss4$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=193.71.180.114;
 posting-account=uulyKwoAAAA86DO0ODu--rZtbje8Sytn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.71.180.114
References: <89634980-4629-4c50-a4bc-e7cd344ca222@googlegroups.com>
 <850d68b8-fdc6-4363-a8c2-d5868ecbed6f@googlegroups.com>
 <1c486967-cf12-4aa0-9bc0-3774f3fc8188@googlegroups.com>
 <mets99$ss4$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c9a82f86-843a-42ce-91f7-348f4d886676@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: GNAT bug in the GNAT GPL 2014 compiler?
From: Egil H H <ehh.public@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:13:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Received-Bytes: 1776
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1540549842
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:25247
Date: 2015-03-25T02:13:52-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:41:01 AM UTC+1, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> but I'd suspect same naming overload.

Exactly.

"package Amock.Main_Application" implicitly "use" Amock.
So when there is a child package called "Amock.Ada"
(implicilty included by "with Amock.Ada.Fields;" and 
"with Amock.Ada.Types;")any references to "Ada" in the 
code will be resolved to this child package. 

Either "Amock.Ada" should be renamed, or the ambiguity
should be resolved by prefixing with Standard, as
suggested.

-- 
~egilhh