Re: Is this legal? (Language lawyer question)

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@attbi.com>]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> Adam Beneschan wrote:
> 
> 
>>I can't see how this wouldn't be ambiguous.  Although ZZZ.all and Elem
>>both have type Item'Class, it appears to me that there are two "="
>>functions visible at that point:
>>
>>   function "=" (L, R : Item) return Boolean;
>>   function "=" (L, R : Item'Class) return Boolean;
>>
>>where the first one is the predefined operator of the generic formal
>>type Item (see RM95 12.5(8)), and the second one is the generic formal
>>function declared above.  Applying 8.6(22-23), the expected type for
>>the parameters in the first function is Item, and that means that it's
>>acceptable for the actual parameter to resolve either to Item or
>>Item'Class.  The consequence is that both of the above functions are
>>acceptable interpretations for the construct, and thus the construct
>>should be ambiguous.
> 
> 
> Intersting. Well it does compile and the programs based on it are running
> fine. Still if I had made a fundamental mistake here I would like to know
> about it.
> 
> With regards
> 
> Martin.
> 

Please forward the actual example to ada-comment@ada-auth.org.  I've 
looked at it, and I think that "we all know" what is meant, but that 
isn't what the standard says...

-- 
                                               Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh