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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9afe16648c0a7435
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Problem Compiling with GNAT
Date: 1999/03/16
Message-ID: <m367815o5f.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 455691020
Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net
References: <7cj6nt$rvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <m3sob6broj.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <7cjm4g$avo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7ck8pk$2co$1@remarQ.com>
 <7cl2dl$sai$1@platane.wanadoo.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:36:38 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-03-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen.adalog@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> I agree that the notation may seem odd in isolation. 

It is odd all the time, Jean-Pierre.

> Moreover (and foremost), it is the only convention I could find which
> is consistent when you use "facet" generic packages, i.e. packages
> that create new tagged types from imported ones.

Just because "it is the only convention you could find which is
consistent" does not mean that another such convention does not exist!