(j3.2006) Absurdity concerning the PROTECTED attribute.

[Van Snyder]

On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 08:29 +0900, Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> >Should it be prohibited to confer the PROTECTED attribute upon an entity
> >that is accessed by use association
> 
> It already is.
> 
> "The local identifier of an entity made accessible by a USE statement shall not 
> appear in any other nonexecutable
> 16 statement that would cause any attribute (5.5) of the entity to be specified 
> in the scoping unit that contains the
> 17 USE statement, except that it may appear in a PUBLIC or PRIVATE statement in 
> the scoping unit of a module
> 18 and it may be given the ASYNCHRONOUS or VOLATILE attribute."
> 
> 100% clear.

Thanks for pointing this out.  I'm happy that the pathology I thought I
had found is impossible.