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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:2c4f:: with SMTP id s76-v6mr579914ios.117.1532088490059; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:08:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:de07:: with SMTP id v7-v6mr123498oig.5.1532088489808; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder4.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!g2-v6no1652701itf.0!news-out.google.com!l67-v6ni3165itl.0!nntp.google.com!g2-v6no1652692itf.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:08:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <42de4aa3-9e7c-44b8-aa84-712cc7ce03c6@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.171.111.51; posting-account=QF6XPQoAAABce2NyPxxDAaKdAkN6RgAf NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.171.111.51 References: <40d568da-4715-42de-8e28-98da39a5c974@googlegroups.com> <34f499f7-020f-4dcc-adad-0ab1113386d1@googlegroups.com> <9d69e7b5-6b2d-4607-9f7b-affa78c41620@googlegroups.com> <41c711cb-0300-4a41-93d3-e69297ae1945@googlegroups.com> <42de4aa3-9e7c-44b8-aa84-712cc7ce03c6@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <9b6b6f10-5956-4a19-83f5-c1c015c62602@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Visibility of Indexing aspects From: Jere Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:08:10 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53918 Date: 2018-07-20T05:08:09-07:00 List-Id: 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?