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: 103376,7f5bdf6fbe5b7665 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Tucker Taft Subject: Re: Abstract procedures in protected types Date: 1999/08/09 Message-ID: <37AF003C.BD8464E2@averstar.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 510647602 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.burl.averstar.com References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics) Burlington, MA USA Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-08-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Aidan Skinner wrote: > > Is it possible to have an abstract procedure inside a protected > object? I have some of these in Libra.Data_Structures, and they > compile without warning or error with GNAT 3.11p. > > However, ObjectAda under Windows refuses to compile them, citing > LRM:9.4(5). This would appear to be correct, since it states: > > protected_operation_declaration ::= subprogram_declaration > | entry_declaration > | representation_clause > > and not does not mention abstract_subprogram_declaration (LRM:6.1(2)). > > I think GNAT is at fault here, but would like to be sure before > submitting a bug report. This appears to be a GNAT bug. As you point out above, abstract subprogram declarations are not permitted inside a protected definition. I am curious what you expected the abstract procedure declaration to accomplish, by the way... > > - Aidan -- -Tucker Taft stt@averstar.com http://www.averstar.com/~stt/ Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions (www.averstar.com/tools) AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.) Burlington, MA USA