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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fb4dd933ef563a8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-08 08:24:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!151.164.30.35!cyclone.swbell.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3D29AE3D.6E256A9A@despammed.com> From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es-MX,es,pt,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: When/Why can a compiler reject an operator but accept a name? References: <3D25D271.ACE6DAC8@despammed.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:22:37 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1026141792 151.168.144.162 (Mon, 08 Jul 2002 11:23:12 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 11:23:12 EDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26940 Date: 2002-07-08T10:22:37-05:00 List-Id: > > Compiler rejected it, saying: > > > > "<" has no definition that matches function (Left, Right : in Item) > > return Boolean [RM_95 3.10.2(32)] > > > > I replaced "<" with Ord_Check (no other changes), and > > the compiler accepted it. > > Sounds like a compiler bug, although I can't be sure without seeing all > the code (e.g., you didn't show the code for Ord_Check). Sorry for being a little vague. ">" was/is a somewhat complicated function, and all I did to make it compile was change the designator to "Ord_Check" in both the declaration and all references. I would normally compare the GNAT behavior, but our admins had a bit of trouble replacing 3.14 with the integrated GCC 3.1 suite. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau