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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:9665:: with SMTP id 34mr32059232qvy.223.1570528915114;
        Tue, 08 Oct 2019 03:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5714:: with SMTP id l20mr3059239oib.175.1570528914841;
 Tue, 08 Oct 2019 03:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!o24no8048666qtl.0!news-out.google.com!q23ni344qtl.1!nntp.google.com!o24no8048660qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 03:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <58103920-4692-46b8-9426-e5a85fa04e77@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=198.99.129.179;
 posting-account=XfA3zgkAAABoz6fRf3Tehtnqqr7Ycml-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.99.129.179
References: <1c12f540-00b8-4be8-bfc6-13ad31d9916c@googlegroups.com>
 <96d5218a-2714-40dd-988d-10c7d27a96a2@googlegroups.com>
 <665a8b5e-533e-4df6-a1c1-7a4c257ea277@googlegroups.com>
 <50fceebb-c48e-4b38-b0f5-2318672a70c1@googlegroups.com>
 <58103920-4692-46b8-9426-e5a85fa04e77@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1516f9bd-4790-45be-af7a-8df61022a495@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: GNAT: no visible subprogram matches the specification for "Put"
From: Vincent Marciante <vincent.marciante@l3harris.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:01:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:57259
Date: 2019-10-08T03:01:54-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 3:01:42 PM UTC-4, briot....@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> I have had this problem forever too, but I was told by the GNAT and Ada
> experts that this was actually expected behavior, though I can never remember the corresponding parts of the LRM.

<snip>
 
> This is a pain point when using generics.

New info:  The code works with Object Ada: compiles it without error and
the executable runs as expected!

If the standard in fact requires disallowence, I wonder what "bad" thing is
being prevented/avoided by not allowing the naturally expected, non-painful
behavior.  Might changing the standard to allow it - or be clear that it is allowed - be warranted? 
 
> It would be nice if someone (Randy, Bob ?) could confirm one way or the other.

Yes. Please.