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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.52.98.130 with SMTP id ei2mr12559320vdb.2.1404754825536;
 Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.hkg.giganews.com!news.netfront.net!news.glorb.com!w8no6695785qac.0!news-out.google.com!ht10ni14417qab.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:40:24 -0500
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:40:23 -0400
From: Peter Chapin <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Position of "use"
References: <lp86r0$ssl$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lp88ht$6n5$1@dont-email.me>	
 <e2ad373b-7c07-489e-8211-7d007966b3ee@googlegroups.com>
 <1404752917.2300.1.camel@pascal.home.net>
In-Reply-To: <1404752917.2300.1.camel@pascal.home.net>
Message-ID: <gYWdndjmDvUVRifO4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-bfLi3KLMQdmbAIVclFGa2bCQPIF3Ph83KsYjZuFY5/hxlpX8iBxZyiW5B5gApX5r0b4wdOvsSZU+v+I!mqSaIkgBLzvvOFfkI3wybprXGfs511QkjC4J4L5YiqeZuyqJLw4/gEIawoIR7pk=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2065
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:187433
Date: 2014-07-07T13:40:23-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2014-07-07 13:08, Pascal Obry wrote:

> Le lundi 07 juillet 2014 à 09:45 -0700, Adam Beneschan a écrit :
>> The visibility rules for context clauses are separate from visibility
>> rules in other cases. At the moment, I am not sure there is any
>> difference at all between Victor's two examples; I'll have to study
>> the rules carefully to make sure. It's possible that there is a
>> difference if there is a child package (package X.Child is ...), or if
>> there is a pragma in the context clause. I'll try to look at it later.
> 
> I suppose it is different if there is multiple units in a single file?

In that case, doesn't each unit have it's own context clause even so?

with A;
package P1 is
  ...
end P1;

with B;
-- The 'with A' above is not relevant here (yes?)
package body P2 is
  ...
end P2;