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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5f6322415d6639e0
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Eric Hughes <eric.eh9@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Will the defect with formal package parameters be fixed in GNAT
	GPL 2009?
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <321cc937-27be-4690-bf0a-426cee170d28@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
References: <558b7171-809b-4259-8679-4b4cff9de519@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
	<9d86256d-a0f3-4c43-82f9-98bb4641be69@s38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
	<87r5zeru4p.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net> <87mya2rtwe.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>
	<3d7a9444-6565-41a4-a3d3-49f87f8b5ae2@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
	<873aburm1d.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.70.57.218
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1240943372 20886 127.0.0.1 (28 Apr 2009 18:29:32
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:29:32 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=166.70.57.218;
	posting-account=5RIiTwoAAACt_Eu87gmPAJMoMTeMz-rn
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.0.10)
	Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5584
Date: 2009-04-28T11:29:32-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Apr 27, 12:25=A0pm, 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.