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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ed596f1f077b44e,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Vance Christiaanse <cintech@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Primitive Operations Question
Date: 1996/07/30
Message-ID: <31FE812C.7B3D@ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171112098
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Cintech Consulting
x-netcom-date: Tue Jul 30  6:39:28 PM PDT 1996
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: cintech@ix.netcom.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Date: 1996-07-30T18:39:28-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Hello!

Much to my dismay, the following procedure compiles on the WebAda
(GNAT 3.04) compiler.  By my reading of RM95 3.2.3, A and B don't
fit any part of the definition of primitive operations, so I
don't see why iheritance seems to be occurring.  When I replace
all three types with a hierarchy of tagged types, both calls
fail to compile, as I would have expected.

Any insight would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Vance Christiaanse
Cintech Consulting
cintech@ix.netcom.com


procedure Example is

  type My_Digit is range 0..7;
  procedure A (V : My_Digit);

  type New_Digit is new My_Digit;  -- is A inherited???

  procedure B (W : New_Digit);

  N : New_Digit := 1;

  type Newer_Digit is new New_Digit;  -- is B inherited???

  M : Newer_Digit := 1;

  procedure A (V : My_Digit) is
  begin
    null;
  end A;

  procedure B (W : New_Digit) is
  begin
    null;
  end B;

begin

   A(N);

   B(M);

end Example;