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: 103376,88c411c9d35323ec X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Tucker Taft Subject: Re: Subtype of limited type non-limited? Date: 2000/03/24 Message-ID: <38DBAB67.C65A783A@averstar.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 601843571 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <87em90iw1n.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@inmet2.burl.averstar.com X-Trace: inmet2.burl.averstar.com 953920359 11467 141.199.8.164 (24 Mar 2000 17:52:39 GMT) Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics) Burlington, MA USA Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Mar 2000 17:52:39 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-03-24T17:52:39+00:00 List-Id: Florian Weimer wrote: > > The following code results in a GNAT error message: > > access_discriminant.ads:21:36: access discriminants allowed > only for limited types > > GNAT assumes that the subtype of a limited type is non-limited (at > least under these special circumstances). Is this really correct? Nope, this looks like a bug. All subtypes and derivatives of a limited type are limited, as are all types with a limited subcomponent. This is sometimes summarized as "limited types are poison." ;-) -- -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