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: 107e1d,aea355e554e5908d
X-Google-Attributes: gid107e1d,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,aea355e554e5908d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Generic child unit renaming
Date: 1999/04/25
Message-ID: <m3k8v0mh3n.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 470834810
References: <7fkvbt$q1r$1@ilana.cenaath.cena.dgac.fr>
 <7fnhph$m0c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 16:05:58 PDT
Newsgroups: fr.comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dennison@telepath.com writes:

> My understanding is that users are not allowed to make children of
> language-defined units (eg: anything in Ada.*). 

I think the rule is that you can't have _direct_ children of Ada, but
that the language doesn't prohibit indirect children, ie grandchildren
are allowed.

> That would allow you visibility into the private section of any
> language-defined unit, which would allow you to do unspeakable things.

But that's my choice to make.  The language, and the compiler vendor,
should get out of my way.