Re: Stupid question

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> news:190oqb9t3eplx$.ffakhbeqreff$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On 13 Apr 2007 08:35:53 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> ...
>> This does not outlaw A.B, it just cannot. A trivial counter example is:
>>
>> with A.B;  -- This is 100% legal
>>
>> With clause is defined in 10.1.2(4) as "with <name>". Here <name> is the
>> same as in 12.7. It refers to 4.1 and is resolved to <selected_component>.
>>
>> Any language lawyers here?
>
> Sorry, Adam is right. A generic package is not a package (that's a standing
> ARG joke, not one of the RM's finest hours of terminology). Context clauses
> have their own, unique visibility rules defined in 10.1.6; you can't use
> them as a counterexample for anything. There is a very complex rule that
> allows you to say A.B there, because it normally would not be.
> Interestingly, the Ada 95 standard did not allow naming a grandchild that
> way (that is, A.B.C), which demonstrates how complex it is.

So it is possible to say 'with A.B' in the context of a compilation
unit if A is "only" a generic (as opposed to an instance)? Even in Ada
95? Is there any example for that somewhere? 

Regards Markus