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: a07f3367d7,3162283879cdc5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.11.239 with SMTP id t15mr5472149wib.3.1369279614152;
        Wed, 22 May 2013 20:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 fw11ni1152wic.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.panservice.it!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Type vs subtype about visibility of parent's private full
 definition
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 19:01:02 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <kn3rvv$e6s$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <op.ww383ycoule2fv@cardamome>
 <309db8ab-239d-4b06-9450-3a0b098f3953@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1368748863 14556 69.95.181.76 (17 May 2013 00:01:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 00:01:03 +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: 2013-05-16T19:01:02-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message 
news:309db8ab-239d-4b06-9450-3a0b098f3953@googlegroups.com...
...
>> What are your opinions about this issue?
>
>7.3.1(4) says that the Value component should be visible at that point. 
>This is a compiler bug.

Humm, I'm not sure that GNAT is wrong here. There is a long tradition of 
tests where you might thing components would be available but are not. I'm 
not certain if this is one of those cases or not, but I direct your 
attention to 7.3.1(5.1/3) [which exists to clarify the language because of a 
bug that some Beneschan guy reported with record aggregates].

The reason I said that I'm "not sure" is that this is a very messy area, and 
what is supposed to happen depends very much upon the exact example. (I 
would blow this all away in my language redesign -- it has wasted far too 
much time for its value.)

                                              Randy.