From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Subject: Re: Does 3.9.3(10) apply to untagged private whose full view is tagged?
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:40:19 +0200
Date: 2007-07-26T12:39:50+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1185446419.28126.44.camel@kartoffel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <XmZpi.3902$ax1.190@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 08:58 +0000, anon wrote:
> Compiling: pak1.ads (source file time stamp: 2007-07-25 03:27:16)
>
> 1. package Pak1 is
> 2. type T1 is private;
> 3.
> 4. private
> 5. type T1 is tagged record
> 6. F1 : Integer;
> 7. end record;
> 8. function Func (X : Integer) return T1 ;
> |
> >>> private function with tagged result must override visible-part function
> >>> move subprogram to the visible part (RM 3.9.3(10))
>
> 9. end Pak1;
> 10.
> Ada 95: RM 3.9.3 (10) says
> ... For a tagged
> type declared in a visible part,
T1 is not visibly tagged nor abstract. The RM rule seems to apply
to visibly tagged types. I'd, too, be interested in a continuation
of GNAT's first message: "must override visible-part function
for a type that is ...".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-26 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-25 22:04 Does 3.9.3(10) apply to untagged private whose full view is tagged? Adam Beneschan
2007-07-26 5:08 ` AW: " Grein, Christoph (Fa. ESG)
2007-07-26 8:58 ` anon
2007-07-26 10:40 ` Georg Bauhaus [this message]
2007-07-26 15:07 ` Adam Beneschan
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox