Re: Why does `Unchecked_Deallocation` need the access type?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:mu2l292s5nlq$.1ag4nqmfs3kyl$.dlg@40tude.net...
...
> Of course nobody should ever declare non-primitive operations defined on
> the parent type. And doing that in the public scope is almost a criminal
> offense.

I agree this is not a realistic example. But it's possible, and it's the 
sort of problem (known as a "Bairdian problem" within the ARG, in honor of 
Steve Baird, who has an uncanny ability to come up with these weird examples 
that kill otherwise appealing ideas) that causes no end of trouble when 
defining new features for Ada, as they have to be addressed somehow.

It would be more realistic in a public child package, but even there your 
point would hold.

                         Randy.

P.S. 'Public_Parent probably would have worked. Not sure why we didn't go 
that way, maybe it didn't work for delegation. And both attributes are 
annoying when there is no parent, as in:

    type P is tagged private;

as they have to be illegal in that case, causing generic contract problems. 
All solvable, but continually getting messier.