Re: Negative float problem

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:06:19 +0100, Maciej Sobczak wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>>>Further, parameterless function call is
>>>>indistinguishable from name.
>>>
>>>So? ADL is about *arguments* and does not apply to parameterless 
>>>functions at all.
>> 
>> But in A.B.C (argument) you do not know whether B is a package, function
>> name or variable.
> 
> ADL applies only to unqualified names.

A.B.C is a qualified name, or can be, or not.

>> Some legal code might become illegal, because some invisible before
>> operations would contribute to overloading.
> 
> Could you please give an example of such code?

package A is
   X : Integer;
end A;

package B is
   X : Integer;
   function "+" (Left, Right : Integer)  return Integer;
end B;

with A, B;
...
A.X + B.X  -- Unambiguous now
 
> Remember that we're considering unqualified names. Note also that ADL is 
> performed *only* when the normal lookup fails (it's an extension 
> mechanism).

I mentioned in my previous post that stratified visibility rules is a
kludge. And anyway it will not work as the example below shows:

package A is
   X : Integer;
   function "+" (Left, Right : Integer)  return Integer;
end A;

package B is
   X : Integer;
   function "+" (Left, Right : Integer)  return Integer;
end B;

with A, B;
...
A.X + B.X

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de