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: 103376,758f1e01b86b6274 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Vincent Marciante Subject: Re: Export instances of procedures Date: 2000/04/25 Message-ID: <39061993.6210@li.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 615655525 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <38FCBA00.992AA7A2@maths.unine.ch> <38FD0E08.6C96@li.net> <3905CCCB.C48B9113@maths.unine.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 956701106 209.139.0.110 (Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:18:26 GMT) Organization: Verio MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:18:26 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Gautier wrote: > > Vincent Marciante wrote: > > > At this point, Read_8bit_AutoInt(...) requires a completion. > > A subprogram renaming declaration (RM 8.5.4) can act as a completion but > > an instantiation can't. > > Sorry for insisting on this question, but _why_ cannot the instance > be considered as complete ? Well, the generic body could depend on an > uncompletely defined type, hence the instance too. But the instance > could also be clearly complete, couldn't it ? In my code, it is! > In that case what does the "renames" bring ? Is it purely formal > or does it reflect some indirections (indirect access to the procedure) ? I only believe that I know the answer to the last question. Some indirection _is_ (/can be?) involved. The kind of type conformance called "subtype conformance" is related to "renaming as body". It lets the renaming as body be implemented by a compiler as a simple jump instruction. I read this description in section 6.2 on page 6-4 of the Ada 95 Rationale. > > NB: I have seen in the Manual many topics about completion (3.10.1, 3.11.1, > 7.6.1, 9.5.2) and the one that seems the most relevant here, 8.5.4(5) but The Rationale section that I mentioned also refers to the RM Section on Conformance rules (RM95 6.3.1). > I didn't guess the motivations behind these rules... > Maybe some wise one knows them or can decipher the Runes ? ;-) Yes, I do not know the underlying reasons, I just remembered from reading the RM. > ______________________________________________________ > Gautier -- http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm