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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: some trivial questions?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:18:59 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <ou3ndi$mkr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <6a5368c5-f015-4dcb-9291-e77b40fa1bf1@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4lq7does.fsf@TheWorld.com> <otrr5u$1rqv$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <wccd14so07t.fsf@TheWorld.com> <ou14r2$49s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <39330489-ec8b-481f-bcff-a5b7d1a2d8e3@googlegroups.com>
 <ou21f3$1bo$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <7c68eace-8a03-4bfc-806d-aa78a453f97f@googlegroups.com>
 <ou2cdt$mtf$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <ee798e4a-621c-452c-94b0-2905ecfb3cb9@googlegroups.com>
 <ou2hsj$11vt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <651d0899-c38f-47f3-8f47-39fe726bc256@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lKHBldubgAWx1EqbQpQ5LQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:48797
Date: 2017-11-10T09:18:59+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 09/11/2017 23:52, AdaMagica wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 9. November 2017 22:38:31 UTC+1 schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov:
>> On 2017-11-09 22:11, AdaMagica wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag, 9. November 2017 21:05:21 UTC+1 schrieb Dmitry A. Kazakov:
>>>> Also why should
>>>>
>>>>       with A.B.C.D;
>>>>
>>>> imply
>>>>
>>>>       with A, A.B, A.B.C;
>>>
>>> Do you think it shouldn't?
>>
>> No. Likewise
>>
>>      use A.B.C;
>>
>> should imply
>>
>>      with [<prefix>,] [<prefix>.]A, [<prefix>.]A.B, [<prefix>.]A.B.C;
>>
> I do not understand. You don't want "with A.B" to imply "with A",
> but  you want "use A.B" to imply "use A"?

I want any obvious dependencies implied.

>>> Children have direct visibility of their ancestors' visible part.
>>> So why shouldn't "with A.B" imply "with A"?
>> Playing devil's advocate, why visibility of A.B in C should imply that D
>> depends on A.B when D has "with A.B.C;"
> Then C depends on A.B, so if D depends on A.B.C, it also depends on A.B.

Yes, and that dependency must be stated explicitly. No?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de