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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1c4a54744b1a13e2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Redefining Integer Type ...
Date: 2000/10/18
Message-ID: <wccn1g2cnfb.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 682859986
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <39ED8FE6.3F7CF3B9@attol-testware.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-10-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Arnaud de Muyser <ademuyser@attol-testware.com> writes:

> I've a little question about operator "+" resolution into 
> the following pack2-proc.adb procedure.
> Why the resolved type (by gnat) is standard.integer whereas
> the visible type named Integer is pack.integer (using use clause).

Names from outer scopes always take precedence over use-visible names.
Everything is nested within Standard.  So in your example,
Standard.Integer hides Pack.Integer.

I don't like that rule -- it's error prone, as you can see.
Hiding considered harmful.

A good rule of thumb is to never redefine any name (such as Integer)
that is declared in Standard, or *could* be declared in Standard (such
as Long_Long_Long_Long_Long_Integer).

- Bob