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 10.129.87.4 with SMTP id l4mr4409206ywb.28.1490565376829;
        Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.157.9.183 with SMTP id q52mr1406237otd.11.1490565376512;
 Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!n37no2573394qtb.0!news-out.google.com!i72ni3614itb.0!nntp.google.com!y18no105779itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <wcc60ivn20p.fsf@TheWorld.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=173.71.201.205;
 posting-account=QF6XPQoAAABce2NyPxxDAaKdAkN6RgAf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.201.205
References: <7f095a51-f906-47b6-ac21-a8e07dc46726@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc60ivn20p.fsf@TheWorld.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ff94b1c4-145e-4468-8f18-85805e3b95da@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Package formal parameter visibility
From: Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:56:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:46478
Date: 2017-03-26T14:56:16-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 5:47:51 PM UTC-4, Robert A Duff wrote:
> Jere writes:
> 
> > If I use A as a formal parameter into another package, I suddenly get
> > visibility of A's formal parameters in that new package.
> 
> Yes, formal packages are treated differently.  If you want to know the
> exact rules, and why, read AARM-12.7(10-10.b).
> 
> - Bob

Gotcha!  Thank you for the section reference!