Re: which compiler is right?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message
news:b4682ab7.0403170927.cc800a5@posting.google.com...
...
> Since the score is currently 2-0 that the code should be illegal,
> maybe I should point out that not everyone agrees with this analysis,
> before you decide it's necessary to fix your code.  My belief is that
> since the Priority routine declared in Pkg2 is declared in a different
> scope than whatever type will be used to instantiate Pkg2, Priority is
> neither a primitive subprogram nor is overriding.  I think GNAT is
> correct to accept the code.

I thought that too, but that's not what the language says. Routines can be
overriding if they are inherited, anywhere. That's so that a type declared
in a body can have overriding routines, even though it can't have
primitives. Scopes have absolutely nothing to do with overriding (look at
8.3 again if you don't believe me). Similarly, primitiveness has nothing to
do with it.

It would be fine for that not to apply in a generic unit, but that is not
the current rule (because the
primitive routines are inherited in the generic). And this is not an area
into which I would likeIn any case, the OP doesn't have any grounds to get
Aonix to change ObjectAda. They may decide to do so because he's an
important customer or something, but otherwise they would be well advised to
wait for the ARG to shake this out.

I think it should be illegal simply because it is very confusing. This looks
like an overriding routine, but it is not. And if it is not overriding,
calls outside of the generic are almost certainly ambigious (for use clause
users, anyway). So it isn't very useful. I suppose the overridding keywords
will help reduce the confusion some, but only if they're widely used (this
routine ought to be tagged "not overriding", which would eliminate the
confusion if that was actually intended. But it would still be hard to call
the routine.)

                   Randy.