Re: Type vs subtype about visibility of parent's private full definition

[Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:01:02 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> ...
> 
> >> What are your opinions about this issue?
> 
> >7.3.1(4) says that the Value component should be visible at that point. 
> >This is a compiler bug.
> 
> Humm, I'm not sure that GNAT is wrong here. There is a long tradition of 
> tests where you might thing components would be available but are not.

My recollection is that those cases involve multiple derivations where type T1 is declared in a Parent package, type extension T2 is derived from T1 in a package that is not a child of Parent, and T3 is derived from T2 in a child of Parent; although normally the private part and body of Parent.Child would be able to see the private part of Parent, there were some language issues because of the type T2 in the middle, which couldn't inherit all the operations from T1 because they weren't visible at any place.  Yannick's example doesn't involve that, so this case shouldn't be as messy.

                              -- Adam