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: a07f3367d7,63ed09fc54092c73
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.98.102 with SMTP id eh6mr1808783wib.7.1360478102759;
        Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:35:02 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 g1ni2195wig.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.139.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder7.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!panix!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: When is a rename not a rename?
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 09:26:01 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccsj5ehjwm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <6d66d1c4-ed22-446b-a9d7-dc806ae1ef8f@googlegroups.com>
 <f4d3708d-d17c-4e53-8f45-f9ac6f64ee54@googlegroups.com>
 <coikrsq8nv3b$.1xcqe2olg7bpv$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <5ab43474-0ce2-425c-836b-ff4c97587958@googlegroups.com>
 <8f7b509f-c92d-48b0-8322-cdc48baf4846@googlegroups.com>
 <18239154-6753-455c-b00e-4caf876e03ff@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1359815161 22132 192.74.137.71 (2 Feb 2013 14:26:01
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 14:26:01 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OVL6WWcFwjNtbtVd1XFqx2+dxDo=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2013-02-02T09:26:01-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:

> I can understand why this would be annoying.  It seems like a problem.
> I don't know if it's enough of a problem to consider fixing the
> language.  It wouldn't be trivial.

Nothing related to visibility is trivial, but I think it could be
done, and would be an improvement to the language.  See 8.3(12.3),
where something similar is going on.

On the other hand, compiler writers aren't going to want to mess around
with this part of their compiler.

A similar example:  Suppose we have:

    X : constant T := Some_Package.X;

And suppose both X's are potentially use-visible at some
place.  You might want to be able to refer to X.  (Currently,
the X's hide each other, and I doubt that's going to change.)

- Bob