From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7405:: with SMTP id p5mr17569761qtq.231.1619450578582;
        Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:4883:: with SMTP id v125mr26387564yba.253.1619450578423;
 Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!50.7.236.18.MISMATCH!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=35.245.252.196; posting-account=XfA3zgkAAABoz6fRf3Tehtnqqr7Ycml-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 35.245.252.196
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <649cc002-f0af-4824-ba68-e5c0cb2833b3n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: but somewhat [different Ada95] _Private_ non-generic children of
 genevariant allowed.
From: Vincent Marciante <vincent.marciante@l3harris.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:22:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2315
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:61906
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I pretty much follow the rational requiring children of generics that are=
=20
meant to be used by users of a generic also be generic.  But what about=20
the case that the child is only introduced for "separation of concerns" and=
 "information hiding" in the body of a generic package: Why can't _private_=
 children of a generic _always_ for use only in the implementation of the p=
arent unit be allowed?   That seems to me to be only a little more flexible=
=20
version of the allowed arrangement where the desired functionality is expre=
ssed in a body-local package that has _its_ implementation as separate stub=
.

So, I mean I have a situation where I like to be able to do the following b=
ut can't.

  generic
    ...
  package Generic_Package is
     procedure Parent_Procedure;
     ...
  end;

private
package Generi

_Package.Child is
   procedure GPC_Procedure;
   ...
end;


package body Generic_Package is
...
    procedure Parent_Procedure is separate;
...
end;

with Generic_Package.C
hild;
separate (Generic_Package)
procedure Parent_Procedure is
begin
...
   Generic_Package.Child.GPC_Procedure;
...
end;





=20