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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,69fac0ed98e83dcd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Language lawyer question: Limited Views
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:30:43 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <gjuceu$h67$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: 
 <b18f1b31-3795-4acf-8027-1f70c798bc32@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
 <ae84f74a-3943-4b8b-916a-ca107c07e5b0@a26g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1231205663 17607 69.95.181.76 (6 Jan 2009 01:34:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:34:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4188
Date: 2009-01-05T19:30:43-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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.