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: 103376,532862505ad62ff5,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Does 3.9.3(10) apply to untagged private whose full view is tagged?
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:04:58 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1185401098.912519.245650@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1185401101 11980 127.0.0.1 (25 Jul 2007 22:05:01
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:05:01 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1188
Date: 2007-07-25T15:04:58-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I think the following is legal, but the version of GNAT I'm using
rejects it, citing 3.9.3(10):

package Pak1 is
   type T1 is private;
private
   type T1 is tagged record
      F1 : Integer;
  end record;
  function Func (X : Integer) return T2;
end Pak1;

3.9.3(10) says, in part, "For a tagged type declared in a visible
part, a primitive function with a controlling result shall not be
declared in the private part, unless it is overriding a function
implicitly declared in the visible part."  My interpretation, though,
is that it doesn't apply here, and that it only applies to types that
are *visibly* tagged in the visible part---not to untagged private
types whose full view is tagged.  The AARM reasoning for the rule has
to do with other packages that declare type extensions of the type
that wouldn't know that there's a private function that needs to be
overridden---but in this case, other packages (except for private
children, which have access to the entire private part of Pak1) can't
declare a type extension of T1; so it would make sense that the rule
wouldn't apply to this code.  Anyway, that's my interpretation, but it
seems within the realm of possibility to interpret it the other way.

So who's right?  Me or GNAT?

                           -- Adam