From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: Re: Factory Pattern in Ada
Date: 1996/08/25
Date: 1996-08-25T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4vq8so$10a6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 321E17F6.167E@velveeta.apdev.cs.mci.com
In article <321E17F6.167E@velveeta.apdev.cs.mci.com>, James_Rogers
<jrogers@velveeta.apdev.cs.mci.com> writes:
|> Since Binary_Node is a descendant of Node, why does the compiler
|> complain about the assignment of a value of Binar_Node_Access to
|> a type of Node_Access (as defined above)?
Conversion from access-to-derived-type to access-to-parent-type is
allowed, but only if the access-to-parent type is a general
("access all") access type. Even then, the conversion must be written as
an explicit type conversion.
--
Norman H. Cohen ncohen@watson.ibm.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-08-25 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-08-23 0:00 Factory Pattern in Ada James_Rogers
1996-08-25 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox