From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 8 Nov 91 13:31:13 GMT
From: aio!qbe.jsc.nasa.gov!dean@eos.arc.nasa.gov  (Jack Dean)
Subject: Re: Is this valid Ada?
Message-ID: <1991Nov8.133113.6222@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <37806@shamash.cdc.com>, case@shamash.cdc.com (Steven V. Case) write
s:
|> 
|> Anyone care to offer an opinion?
|> 
|> ----------------------------------------
|> 
|> PACKAGE Ambiguous_Type IS
|> 
|>   TYPE Is_This_Ambiguous IS NEW Integer;
|> 
|> END Ambiguous_Type;
|> 
|> ----------------------------------------
|> 
|> WITH Ambiguous_Type; USE Ambiguous_Type;
|> 
|> PROCEDURE Test IS
|> 
|>   PROCEDURE Is_This_Ambiguous IS
|>   BEGIN
|>     NULL;
|>   END Is_This_Ambiguous;
|> 
|> BEGIN
|> 
|>   Is_This_Ambiguous;
|> 
|> END Test;
|> 

The way I read 8.7 of the LRM, this should be legal.  The potential
problem stems from the overloading of of Is_This_Ambiguous.  One possible
resolution is the parameterless procedure Test.Is_This_Ambiguous.  The
other possible resoulution is the implicit conversion function
Ambiguous_Type.Is_This_Ambiguous, which takes a parameter of type
Integer, and returns a result of type Ambiguous_Type.Is_This_Ambiguous. 
Now clearly the syntax rules and the parameter profile rules eliminate
this second resolution.  Since there is only one valid interpretation,
the use of the overloaded entity is legal.


-- 
Jack Dean                         dean@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov