Re: Language lawyer question: Limited Views

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message 
news:ae84f74a-3943-4b8b-916a-ca107c07e5b0@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31 2008, 9:59 am, Maxim Reznik <rezni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Consider
>> package Pkg is
>>    type T;
>>    type T is null record;
>> end Pkg;
>>
>> According to 10.1.1(12.3/2)
>> "The limited view of a package contains: ... For each type_declaration
>> in the visible part, an incomplete view of the type..."
>>
>> limited view for it would be:
>>
>> package limited view Pkg is
>>    type T;  --  for declaration type T;
>>    type T;  --  for declaration type T is null record;
>> end Pkg;
>>
>> Why two implicit declaration of T are allowed here?
>> Is second "type T;" completion for first?
>
> I suppose the answer is that the RM says that the implicit declaration
> of the limited view contains an "incomplete view" of a type, not an
> actual "type declaration", so the syntax rules having to do with
> declarations don't actually apply since these are not really
> declarations.  In any case, I wouldn't worry about it; the limited
> view contains an incomplete view of T.  I'm someone who worries a lot
> about the tiniest potential ambiguities in the RM, but even this one
> doesn't concern me at all.

Gee, Adam, you must be slipping. *I* was concerned about this very problem 
when I ran across it in the context of a question raised during the Portland 
ARG meeting. The rules are pretty clearly wrong, IMHO. See AI05-0129-1, 
which I created to fix that situation (note, dated November 23rd, 2008).

                                            Randy.

P.S. Maxim may not have noted the AI as I think it was first posted very 
recently.