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=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4503:: with SMTP id k3mr2995919qvu.52.1619457385392;
        Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7354:: with SMTP id o81mr16657674ybc.165.1619457385232;
 Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!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 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <984f3661-59bb-4c09-a686-d456979c54a7n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=94.31.102.170; posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 94.31.102.170
References: <78fd99c3-538d-4981-af11-c1885df36575n@googlegroups.com>
 <77699289-3e50-4fae-a416-8ce11965f368n@googlegroups.com> <984f3661-59bb-4c09-a686-d456979c54a7n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e5538816-83ed-4fbb-bcc3-6051a5482c6en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Ada95] Private non-generic children of generics not allowed
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 17:16:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:61912
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vincent Marciante schrieb am Montag, 26. April 2021 um 18:53:09 UTC+2:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:41:47 PM UTC-4, AdaMagica wrote: 
> > Children of generic packages are also generic.
> I do understand that that is the current stipulation. My question is rational 
> for including the private children. It seems that a child arrangement such as 
> I presented (non-generic but _private_) would not have caused any problems 
> and might have been allowable. So, why not?

Generic packages are not packages. So a child of a generic package cannot be a package. This is the logic.
I do not know what rules would have to be defined for making this allowed.