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: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran)
Subject: Re: Overlaying of methods.
Date: 1997/10/01
Message-ID: <34326cfd.174634@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 277068528
References: <34310F93.41C6@htl-bw.ch> <343131AC.6D6@bix.com>
 <34325DA2.41C6@htl-bw.ch>
Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Would the parent Init be legal?  Yes.  Is the child Init legal? Yes.
Which did the programmer mean?  That is ambiguous.  Now if you want to
add a rule that says "resolve ambiguity by using the child, not the
parent", that's a reasonable idea, but it's not an Ada 95 rule.