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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9747037d09060687
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed-fusi2.netcologne.de!195.14.215.230.MISMATCH!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-hp2.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: A proposal for formal packages matching
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <ugbgacg90vkd.1fijdixn7a5z4.dlg@40tude.net>
 <efef2f63-4591-4048-957d-d01c6bb53b12@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <gi72ks$jgk$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:34:57 +0100
Message-ID: <jgvbcey8cn1z.xg4f5z8pn2c1$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Dec 2008 09:34:57 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: e002c758.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=1a>I1;ETojJj7E:bke<5HFMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbIS7H=QbWHU8FDNcfSJ;bb[EFCTGGVUmh?DLK[5LiR>kgBHK=gF<2OJ<O
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3004
Date: 2008-12-16T09:34:57+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0600, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> Indeed, the declaration of "AB" is dubious. The intent of the language 
> designers (as I best I understand it) was for these instances to also be 
> children.
> 
> with Generic_A.Generic_B;
> package A.B is new A.Generic_B;
> 
> in which case there wouldn't be any temptation to reference the parent 
> implicitly.

The language designers didn't articulate their intent well. If instances of
children were per "intent" children of instances, then I would expect some
equivalent of extension aggregates for instantiations of paths of generic
packages etc...

Anyway, there are two parents of a child package instance, to add
confusion, I guess. I didn't mean the "actual parent" of a child instance.
There could be none. I meant the actual of the "formal parent." (Generics
are cool, aren't they? (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de