Re: Ada2005 temp solo child

["Grein, Christoph" <christoph.grein@eurocopter.com>]

> ... The compiler has to look for the
> declarations in the parent (in order to determine if the child name is
> legal). Ada makes you declare almost everything before use. Why would
> this case be different? It doesn't feel much different to me than
> saying:
> 
>     Int := 10;
> 
> and complaining that the compiler shouldn't need a declaration of Int.

Another point to consider:

Ada95 removed unneeded library bodies. They were a source of problems when the 
spec was recompiled and the body forgotten.

Your proposal would add a new source of errors of this kind. Imagine there is a 
parent that is somehow lost. The compiler would not know that there should be a 
parent.

> That's what empty parent packages are for. It's only three lines of code!

So where is the problem in declaring empty packages?