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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!inmet!stt
From: stt@inmet.inmet.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: layering with discriminants
Message-ID: <20600087@inmet>
Date: 6 Mar 91 20:12:00 GMT
References: <90348@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Nf-ID: #R:tut.cis.ohio-state.edu:90348:inmet:20600087:000:1501
Nf-From: inmet.inmet.com!stt    Mar  6 15:12:00 1991
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <44963@ut-emx.uucp> hasan@emx.utexas.edu (David A. Hasan) writes:
 . . .
>My problem revolves around the fact that the DEC compiler rejects
>the presence of the discriminant in the full declaration of the adt in
>the private part of g_highLevel, since the declaration is not a record.
>But the declaration is *derived* from a record.

>My conclusion is that it is not legal to derive
>types with discriminants from parents with discriminants.  
>If this is true, is there anyway to achieve an equivalent effect?

This is true, and it is admittedly annoying.  One way is
to make the private type into a record containing the parent
as a component.  Some compilers are clever enough to share
the space occupied by the component's discriminants for
the enclosing record's discriminants (since they must always
have the same value).

For example:

    type Blah(X : Integer) is private;

private

    type Blah(X : Integer) is record
        Parent : Parent_Type(X);
    end record;

-S. Tucker Taft
Ada 9X Mapping/Revision Team
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138

P.S. This annoyance has been identified as something which
might be fixable in Ada 9X without too much change, perhaps
by allowing:

    type Blah(X : Integer) is new Parent_Type(X);

in the private part which would make Blah be a derivative of 
Parent_Type, but also allow the declaration to 
fulfill "type Blah(X : Integer) is private;"

It is too early to tell whether such a proposal will survive the
9X review process.