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
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Does 3.9.3(10) apply to untagged private whose full view is
	tagged?
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <XmZpi.3902$ax1.190@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
References: <1185401098.912519.245650@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
	 <XmZpi.3902$ax1.190@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1185446419.28126.44.camel@kartoffel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1 
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:40:19 +0200
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jul 2007 12:39:50 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: ea0a3442.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=\M@e0eQPe=_=>bdbdS?M0YA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQgUcjd<3m<;RKI_5]kME>>T=kbmW`a1fGWC`2T@AUZfC[aUoQ@V_4;RQ
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1202
Date: 2007-07-26T12:39:50+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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 ...".