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: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard
Date: 1996/09/12
Message-ID: <dewar.842545692@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 180189923
references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
 <503sbo$j45@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <DwyFuC.E0K@world.std.com>
 <507akg$t9u@krusty.irvine.com> <Dx05yF.Jpo@world.std.com>
 <dewar.841529656@schonberg> <50q1b8$1c0a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
 <DxCrEz.D9I@thomsoft.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Keith said

"I don't think it's quite that simple.  For example, is the following
legal?

foo.ads:

    package Foo is
        type My_Address is new System.Address;  -- ?

foo.adp:

    with System;
    private
        -- ...
    end Foo;

If the language really supported separately compiled private parts, a
with clause on the private part would not apply to the visible part.
If it's interpreted as a "source representation", it does apply.
(I suppose the compiler could issue a warning for cases like this.)
"

Keith either you are not thread following, or your news handler delivers
stuff late, or you missed reading some of my messages :-) :-)

Of course this is legal. There is no possible "source interpretation" which
would make this legal, and indeed I have explicitly noted in my previous
posts that this is a (minor) disadvantage of this approach. I think minor
in practice ...
dp