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: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.232.42 with SMTP id tl10mr7424808pbc.7.1335485387139;
        Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 r9ni102388pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:09:38 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <jnco48$35q$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <9af5eaaa-1c48-4455-a8e8-39dd9ee8092d@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
 <op.wdcj0snyule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <bjg1nrfssv58$.1f05frcj5q54s$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1335485384 3258 69.95.181.76 (27 Apr 2012 00:09:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:09:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2012-04-26T19:09:38-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:bjg1nrfssv58$.1f05frcj5q54s$.dlg@40tude.net...
...
> My complaint has always been that Ada should finally take the policy that
> name conflicts shall be treated as errors if not explicitly resolved. That
> would nullify your example, because there will be no context with
> undistinguishable X.

Not sure what you mean by this; Ada has always had that policy. Indeed, 
there was a formal proof for Ada 95 that there were no Beaujolias effects 
(which is essentially the same thing).

I could see eliminating some of the hiding rules that Ada already has, but 
that's different than what you describe above: those declarations 
effectively don't exist in scopes where they are hidden, so they can have no 
effect on resolution or legality.

                                     Randy.