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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e1d728aa632a5b94
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.219.170 with SMTP id pp10mr23887317pbc.1.1341903727441;
        Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni11236pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Rod Kay <rodakay@internode.on.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Gnat: broken dispatch tables for interface types ?
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <48efa098-30ee-473d-af17-8de323a54967@googlegroups.com>
References: <c231a9b2-8fb7-41ab-98a2-72173a08f66c@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.101.201.124
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1341903727 19544 127.0.0.1 (10 Jul 2012 07:02:07
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:02:07 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <c231a9b2-8fb7-41ab-98a2-72173a08f66c@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=150.101.201.124;
 posting-account=pBdvJAoAAAAbTiQ-L1tpxD99i_UttsrJ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-07-10T00:02:06-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

   I seem to have found the cause of my problem.


   In one case, when an Observer registered itself with a Subject, I'd used the ".all'access" notation to convert from a derived Observer 'access' to the base Observer "access" ...

   Self.Keyboard.register_Observer (Self.all'access, ...);



   When I do the conversion explicitly, all is fine ...

   Self.Keyboard.add (lace.event.Observer.view (Self), ...);



   Thank you Vadim, for the tip.



   Also, it seems I managed to introduce a different error in my (not so) cut-down version of the code (ie deriving types within a body, rather than spec), which Dmitri pointed out. Would two bug reports be in order then ?


   Finally, thanks again to all for the prompt, helpful replies.