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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,aee6065fc75bfcb4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Stefan Muehlebach <ia94mueh@htl-bw.ch>
Subject: Re: Overlaying of methods.
Date: 1997/10/01
Message-ID: <34325DCC.167E@htl-bw.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 277020281
References: <34310F93.41C6@htl-bw.ch>
 <JSA.97Sep30175102@alexandria.organon.com>
X-Complaints-To: news@ubnnews.unisource.ch
X-Trace: ubnnews.unisource.ch 875709012 14904 (None) 147.86.130.106
Organization: Technical University of Brugg-Windisch - Switzerland
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jon S Anthony wrote:
> 
> type XaCradioBox has two overloaded Init procedures (3.2.3 & 3.4): the
> one inherited from it's parent with the "adjust_last" in its signature
> (implicitly declared) and the one explicitly declared on it without
> "adjust_last" in its signature.  Either of these can be invoked on
> myRadioBox.  Perhaps more to the point, either of these can be chosen
> to determine the runtime dispatch resolution.  Which of these is
> chosen for this is a compile time overload resolution.
> 
> Off the top of my head, the call looks like it should give a compile
> time ambiguous overload resolution error.  If this isn't true, could
> Robert, Bob or Tucker explain why it is OK?
> 
> /Jon
> --
> Jon Anthony
> STL, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
> "Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
>  Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

I have to add some more infos about my problem.
I use the GNAT-Compiler 3.09 and the program can be compiled WITHOUT any
error or warning messages.

It is impossible to use the Init procedure declared for XaCradioBox even
if I use the fully qualified call like this:

  Main_Pack.RowColumn_Pack.RadioBox_Pack.Init(...);

It's funny that the problem can be solved by removing the 'adjust_last'
parameter from the first specification.