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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,814577151c84863d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-16 15:44:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!news3.optonline.net!cyclone.rdc-nyc.rr.com!news-west.rr.com!news.rr.com!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: which compiler is right? Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:43:38 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <105f49uo9id2744@corp.supernews.com> References: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6359 Date: 2004-03-16T17:43:38-06:00 List-Id: "Which compiler is right?" Typically, that's irrelevant. You have to avoid any construct that doesn't work with any of the compilers, because the turn-around time for a fix is too long to wait for. (That's especially true for something like Claw.) Anyway... wrote in message news:mailman.97.1079444714.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org... > Could someone, please, tell me if this code compile with other compilers > than GNAT and ObjectAda? > Or even better, is ObjectAda right in rejecting it? I think the program is illegal, but certainly not for the reasons that ObjectAda is reporting. But perhaps this is one of the cases where something completely unrelated is fixing a bug elsewhere in the language (because I cannot figure out a reason for it to be illegal other than freezing - which has nothing to do with this). The inherited Priority routine is primitive by 3.2.3. 8.3 then says that the new declaration overrides it. Of course, this is bogus, because the type is not even declared in this scope, so any such overriding has to be illegal. But I can't find any reason for that. OA says that the type is frozen, but there really isn't any reason to assume that (and that may not be true in Ada 2005 anyway). Even if the type was not frozen, we'd still want this to be illegal. Looks like Ada-Comment material to me. Randy.