Re: Will the defect with formal package parameters be fixed in GNAT GPL 2009?

[Eric Hughes <eric.eh9@gmail.com>]

On Apr 27, 12:25 pm, Samuel Tardieu <s...@rfc1149.net> wrote:
> That may be a bug, but if you're not willing to accept workarounds for
> the precise one you're describing, what is the point of asking for help?

I wasn't asking for help. I was inquiring whether a defect was fixed
or not.

> You should have included one other named parameter so that it would have
> been clear that the simple workaround I described cannot be applied to
> your situation.

I suppose I could have done that, had I anticipated that people
wouldn't read that I had cut down the code to isolate the defect and
also anticipated that it wasn't already obvious that I knew of the
"workaround" by including it as a comment in the example provided.