Re: Is this legal? (Language lawyer question)

[Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>]

Adam Beneschan wrote:

> I can't see how this wouldn't be ambiguous.  Although ZZZ.all and Elem
> both have type Item'Class, it appears to me that there are two "="
> functions visible at that point:
> 
>    function "=" (L, R : Item) return Boolean;
>    function "=" (L, R : Item'Class) return Boolean;
> 
> where the first one is the predefined operator of the generic formal
> type Item (see RM95 12.5(8)), and the second one is the generic formal
> function declared above.  Applying 8.6(22-23), the expected type for
> the parameters in the first function is Item, and that means that it's
> acceptable for the actual parameter to resolve either to Item or
> Item'Class.  The consequence is that both of the above functions are
> acceptable interpretations for the construct, and thus the construct
> should be ambiguous.

Intersting. Well it does compile and the programs based on it are running
fine. Still if I had made a fundamental mistake here I would like to know
about it.

With regards

Martin.

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com