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,ac5c3bc59168d76
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Subprogram Renaming
Date: 1996/04/06
Message-ID: <dewar.828789034@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 146087674
references: <md5:C24D8C2EE138D9627FB8B93E2E35D9F3>
 <31655314.19A0@csehp3.mdc.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

James Squire said

"So I am totally at a loss to see how Ada95 added anything to the case
cited in 6.2 of the Rationale to allow you to do something you weren't
able to do in Ada83."

I don't see this is so confusing in the Rationale. The new thing, as is
clear from your quote, is being allowed to use a subprogram renaming
declaration AS A BODY (in particular as a completion).

The notion (and syntax) of a subprogram renaming declaration of course
is not new, so there is no point in looking for a change in that section.

But I realize that a lot of people need examples (I hate them :-) so
here is one:

package q i
  procedure j;
end q;

package body q is
   ...
   procedure j renames k;
end q;