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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f428ff2031155951
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Equivalent of dynamic_cast (downcast) for tagged types
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:55:25 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <105c5d90-f9a5-4193-acc3-1c701bacd53f@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
References: <375fb596-ab12-4cb0-a190-53d62b94b2e4@e9g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
 <evoxe8yl0jfw.guw86vvdhuzb.dlg@40tude.net>
 <510d779c-d15b-4fc1-b831-bfc578ecdb4b@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com>
 <7q5flc9of9ey.19h9nmmzjxqn0.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c235da0b-6fd9-494a-9681-d962bcb4a9dd@u24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <joz7ejpgeda0$.etbrqjysvoke$.dlg@40tude.net> <ihvkqn$5jj$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1296262525 11054 127.0.0.1 (29 Jan 2011 00:55:25
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:55:25 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR
 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16784
Date: 2011-01-28T16:55:25-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jan 28, 3:51=A0pm, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> In both of these of these cases, there are two operations (no overriding
> happens). Either one of the Foos is invisible (in which case you get the
> visible one), or the program is illegal because it is ambiguous.

Technically, I don't think you can get an ambiguous program from two
subprograms with the same name and same profile.  Either one overrides
the other, as you say; or, by 8.3(12.2/2), all of them will be hidden
from all visibility, and then none of the Foos is visible.  Although I
guess that really isn't that much different from calling it
"ambiguous".

                                 -- Adam