Re: Type in allocator has deeper level than designated class-wide type

[Adrian Hoe <abyhoe@gmail.com>]

On Jun 15, 12:01 am, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 1:01 am, Adrian Hoe <aby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > But this defeats my implementation intention which the size and the
> > type of its data array can only be determined during runtime. Any
> > suggestion?
>
> There was no reason to change the generic parameters to High_Cloud, or
> to change the type of the Data component from Data_Array to Item.  As
> I tried to explain, your problem had nothing to do with arrays.  The
> problem has to do with where the Element_Record type extension is
> declared, which has to do with where the High_Cloud generic is
> instantiated.  In your latest example, you instantiated it directly in
> a library package, Hen, so there won't be a problem.  If you
> instantiate it inside a procedure, there will be a problem.  But the
> types of the components don't matter.
>
> If it *does* make a difference---i.e. if declaring Data as a
> Data_Array instead of an Item makes things fail, even if High_Cloud is
> still instantiated directly inside Hen---then I believe the problem is
> with your compiler, and you need to contact your compiler vendor and
> file a bug report.
>
>                                   -- Adam

Yes, of course both methods are working as long as the instantiation
happens at library level. The implementation of I_Array (e.g.
I_Array_31 to indicate array (1..31) of Integer) in Hen gives the
array a name to describe it, rather than Data_Array as in High_Cloud
in the 1st post.

Compiler  error has been ruled out.

Is there any other method other than using "generic" package? Again,
the rule is: The data type and the size of the array can only be
determined during runtime.

Thanks.
--
Adrian Hoe
http://adrianhoe.com/adrianhoe