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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!nbires!hao!hplabs!ucbvax!SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU!Mendal
From: Mendal@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU (Geoff Mendal)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Derived Types, RM 3.4(11, 15)
Message-ID: <12272896359.10.MENDAL@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Thu, 22-Jan-87 04:13:13 EST
Article-I.D.: Sierra.12272896359.10.MENDAL
Posted: Thu Jan 22 04:13:13 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Jan-87 00:54:53 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dear Ada Fans-
It's hardly been a week since the last SIGAda and we're already
confused.  Consider the following package spec:

  package P is
    type N is range 1 .. 10;
    type D is new N;  -- invalid

    function "+" (L, R : in N) return N;
  private
    type E is new N;  -- valid
  end;

What is the rationale for the special rules in RM 3.4(15)?  Why not
simply have predefined addition on type D and user-defined addition
on type E?

The rules on 3.4(15) are quite clear and obvious.  The question is
what is their underlying rationale?

   doug and geoff
-------