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,b4731a3b5d591abd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "John G. Volan" Subject: Re: Task Discriminants & Arrays Date: 1997/05/15 Message-ID: <337B37C3.180B@sprintmail.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 241744719 References: <3379C86F.352@this.message> <337B09C9.62BB@sprintmail.com> Reply-To: johnvolan@sprintmail.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew Heaney wrote: > > In article <337B09C9.62BB@sprintmail.com>, johnvolan@sprintmail.com wrote: > > >An interesting suggestion. We could have something like: > > > > task type Process_Type > > (Process_Id : Process_Id_Type := Get_New_Process_Id) > > -- Note: We have to make sure this function is already > > -- elaborated at this point; probably needs to be in another > > -- package > > No. The rule that a procedure body is a "later declarative item" went away > in Ada 95: Yes, that's true. Having the full body of Get_New_Process_Id earlier in the same declarative region would do the trick. However, my intention was for the code in my sketch to go into a package, rather than just a local block. Parts of my example belonged in the package spec, parts in the body, but I admit that wasn't clear. (I was typing pretty fast...) Under those circumstances, I don't believe Get_New_Process_Id could be another function spec declared in the same package spec with Process_Type. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature (Name => "John G. Volan", Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com", Slogan => "Ada95: The World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL", Disclaimer => "These opinions were never defined, so using them " & "would be erroneous...or is that just nondeterministic now? :-) "); ------------------------------------------------------------------------