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 10.68.201.168 with SMTP id kb8mr5761154pbc.3.1335566777814;
        Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 r9ni105986pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.tornevall.net!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: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:46:13 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <jnf7jo$dfk$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <9af5eaaa-1c48-4455-a8e8-39dd9ee8092d@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
 <op.wdcj0snyule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <bjg1nrfssv58$.1f05frcj5q54s$.dlg@40tude.net> <jnco48$35q$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1xjgrplu1bsor$.47yv0ce0fyef$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1335566776 13812 69.95.181.76 (27 Apr 2012 22:46:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:46:16 +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: 2012-04-27T17:46:13-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:1xjgrplu1bsor$.47yv0ce0fyef$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:09:38 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:
...
>> Not sure what you mean by this; Ada has always had that policy.
>
> But not for use-clauses.

Use clauses cancel if there is any conflict, giving a required error. 
Perhaps you mean the preference for direct visibility? That isn't a 
"conflict" in any sense of the word; the use versions aren't visible at all 
in that case.

And that preference seems necessary because there would be no workaround to 
broken direct visibility (there is no prefix to use as there is in the 
use-clause case) - one of the root philosophies of Ada 83 was that there 
would always be a workaround to any visibility error (which is why Ada has 
the many ways to prefix identifiers and otherwise disambiguate).

                                       Randy.