Re: Visibility of Indexing aspects

[Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 6:11:12 AM UTC-4, AdaMagica wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 17. Juli 2018 11:46:23 UTC+2 schrieb AdaMagica:
> > > I looked at that, but saw that 8.2(7), which applies in this case, 
> > > specifically leaves out the aspect specification of what is considered 
> > > in/out of the visible part.  It says all things within the type_declaration,
> > > which is not defined to contain the aspect_specification (though the
> > > full_type_declaration does).
> > 
> > Please see 7.3(2/3) - it does!
> 
> Ah, it seems I misinterpreted your words. The RM syntax for private type declarations contains the aspect specification. The specific example here does not, and this is what you tried to say.
> 
> So the scope of the private view is larger than the scope of the full declaration, and the latter only contains the aspect spec. So the scope of the aspect spec is hidden in the private part and thus not visible.

I was under the impression that scope and visibility were two different
things.  If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you are saying
that

package Things is
   --One scope
private
   --another scope
end Things;

I was under the impression that it was more like:

package Things is
   --One scope
private
   --same scope but different visibility
end Things;

Also how does this reconcile with:

8.3 (23.1/3):
An attribute_definition_clause or an aspect_specification is
visible everywhere within its scope.

That section makes it sound like aspects created in the private
section are indeed visible in the public section.  

Couple that with the section you mentioned:

8.2(10.1/3) The scope of an aspect_specification is identical to 
the scope of the associated declaration.

which doesn't say that the aspect_specification has to be attached to
the declaration, just associated with it.  A full view is 
associated with the view in the public section.

also makes it sound like the aspect can be placed in the private
part but be the same scope as a declaration in the public part.

Does that clarify my confusion any better?