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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: GNAT GPL 2013 bug?
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:47:07 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <19fr4wmxmen$.gjbias2fj461$.dlg@40tude.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: akU61YSCmz18VAS8AmGZtg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16712
Date: 2013-08-09T11:47:07+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

ARM 3.9.2(10/2)

"... If the dispatching operation overrides an inherited subprogram, it
shall be subtype conformant with the inherited subprogram."

Does not-null constraint count? To me (I am not a language layer) it does.
But GNAT GPL 2013 (20130314) swallows this:

   type T is tagged null record;
   procedure P (X : access T) is null;

   type S is new T with null record;
   overriding procedure P (X : not null access S) is null;

Which is a bug to me.

P.S. Being subtype conformant to another type (T vs S) is a tricky part.
Presumably "the inherited subprogram" is

   procedure P (X : access T);

after T is replaced by S. Which gives

   procedure P (X : access S);

and this must be subtype conformant to

   overriding procedure P (X : not null access S);

which is not. Is it?

P.P.S. There is of course a deeper issue with any constraints put on or
lifted upon inheritance regarding LSP and substitutability. Because it
might be safe to weaken a constraint (precondition actually). E.g. turning
the example around:

   type T is tagged null record;
   procedure P (X : not null access T);

   type S is new T with null record;
   overriding procedure P (X : access S);

This might be safe as the clients are promised more.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de