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!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Diamond diagram for 'with'
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:20:33 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <p6k68f$9li$1@gioia.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: MyFhHs417jM9AgzRpXn7yg.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/52.6.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.aioe.org:119
Content-Language: en-US
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50520
Date: 2018-02-21T17:20:33+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I would ask language lawyers regarding multiple with.

Consider this:

    limited with Root.A;
    package Root is
    end Root;

    package Root.A is
       type T is ...;
    end Root.A;

    with Root.A;
    package Root.B is
    end Root.B;

Now Root.B has both limited (inherited from Root) and full "with" of 
Root.A. So, may Root.B use Root.A.T? It cannot according to "limited 
with" and it can due to full "with". Which one to win?

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