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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3423d40a9e59c457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-19 08:16:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail From: Martin Krischik Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is this legal? (Language lawyer question) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:37:20 +0200 Organization: AdaCL Message-ID: <1518883.yLCxvbNBJf@linux1.krischik.com> References: Reply-To: krischik@users.sourceforge.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1061305994 03 32189 91leV92XSHAi7U 030819 15:13:14 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de X-ID: Zp9w6MZpreXGB+aL4GXTPtjsxJJVKX3f0s0x60zJXbv1gxRpW3BLUc User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41722 Date: 2003-08-18T18:37:20+02:00 List-Id: 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