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,d121cc76e012fcca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Library Level Question Date: 1999/03/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 449974069 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <36c853cb.0@news.pacifier.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-03-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: The explanation below is not quite right. "Library level" means anything whose lifetime is essentially forever -- ie it lasts until the end of the whole program. A variable (or anything else) can be nested inside as many packages as you like, and it lasts "forever". That's library level. OTOH, if it's nested inside a procedure, function, or task, then it's not at library level -- its lifetime ends when the containing procedure returns, or whatever. I think "library level" was a poor choice of terms, because it makes people think of "library unit", which isn't quite right. Matthew Heaney writes: > This just means that when you have a package, not declared in anything > else, as in > > package Book is > ... > end Book; > > that it is at library level. Just like our book. > > But if we have a package inside another, like this: > > package Book is > > package Diagram is > > ... > end Diagram; > > ... > end Book; > > > then the inner package is _not_ at library level. The diagram is in the > book, not the library. -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.