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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,999932ecc319322a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!panix!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: advice on package design
Date: 17 Mar 2005 14:10:11 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc7jk6rsvg.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <1110212638.336123.298580@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <1gbk0qx2sgzpg$.sltzfssofla8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcc64zw63j6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <3jok3ghqqls8$.1rrsonb8jsurt$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccsm30ttj5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <88zllqj1min5$.fqqxis9i327d$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wcck6o7s4q4.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <18e9a92kz25wu$.8b965bel5vef$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccpsxy1i8l.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1dgodaruwhhwo$.1baazg490isjx.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01-e.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1111086611 6009 69.38.147.31 (17 Mar 2005 19:10:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:10:11 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9556
Date: 2005-03-17T14:10:11-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On 17 Mar 2005 09:04:26 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
> >> I agree with the idea, but I think that hiding should appear in a
> >> declarative part. Less probably it should also qualify the thing being
> >> hidden (like renames does):
> > 
> > I don't believe in declarative parts.  I think declare/begin/end
> > should not be required just because I want to declare a constant
> > or something.
> 
> Disagree. I don't like the idea of something changing its meaning within
> the same scope, even if that is non-existing -> exiting. I have to tolerate
> this in a declarative region because probably there is no better way to do
> it. But I don't want to let it leak out of the quarantine zone.

I don't understand what you mean about "changing meaning".
I just want to be able to write things like:

    for I in A'Range loop
        This_Component: constant T := A(I);
        ... several uses of This_Component
    end loop;

without adding three extra (useless) lines of code.
And we agreed that if there's another thing called This_Component,
this This_Component should not hide that This_Component.

The "hide" command I proposed is of dubious value, but if it were
allowed, I wouldn't mind restricting it to whole procedures
or something.  Or not.  But either way, I don't like the separation
of "declarations" and "statements".

- Bob