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: 17 Jun 93 16:30:42 GMT From: cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.i c.ac.uk!uknet!mcsun!hp4at!news.univie.ac.at!scsing.switch.ch!epflnews!disuns2.e pfl.ch!lglsun!nebbe@ucbvax.Berkeley. (Robb Nebbe) Subject: Re: Type declarations in a subprogram Message-ID: <1993Jun17.180625@lglsun.epfl.ch> List-Id: In article , stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) writes: : ... : any extension of a tagged type must be at the : same "accessibility" level as the parent type. : ("Accessibility" level is essentially the lexical nesting level, : but ignoring package nesting -- only subprograms and : tasks create new levels of accessibility.) : : Tagged types may be declared in the declarative : part of a subprogram, but they are then restricted to that "universe." So the only difference would then be that one could derive an new type from integer but one couldn't derive a new type from a tagged type (declared at another "accessibility" level) inside a subprogram. Looks much more reasonable than the rule I saw. Ada 9X is really starting to shape up nicely. : In Ada 9X, we have tried to remove certain "arbitrary" : Ada 83 restrictions that didn't add to reliability, : while choosing a set of restrictions for the new 9X features that : ensure that inherent reliability remains the hallmark for Ada. : : >Robb : : S. Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com : Ada 9X Mapping/Revision Team : Intermetrics, Inc. : Cambridge, MA 02138 : Robb