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: 103376,2948948ddf794344
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Stupid question
References: <qmtteppxaswx.15h05see2ip7t.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1176414032.163717.31900@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <1176415338.362267.115580@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
 <1pyl2asiynhjs.117mopb54gcj7$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1176478553.026938.254630@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <190oqb9t3eplx$.ffakhbeqreff$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <evok0d$278$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
From: Markus E Leypold
 <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Organization: N/A
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:33:16 +0200
Message-ID: <y7zm5chxxf.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lZyun8glSk//4Ndjv8R0z/LmDyM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.246.151
X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1176492350 88.72.246.151 (13 Apr 2007 21:25:50
 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14995
Date: 2007-04-13T21:33:16+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"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