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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!sei.cmu.edu!firth
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Conformance rules question
Message-ID: <5271@aw.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 28 Apr 88 12:22:39 GMT
References: <1103@augusta.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu
Reply-To: firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (Robert Firth)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa
Keywords: procedure conformance LRM 6.3.1
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1103@augusta.UUCP> bs@augusta.UUCP (Burch Seymour) writes:
  In the following code package paramtest will compile without error
  even though the string initialization values in the spec and body
  do not match. Package paramtest2, which uses an integer argument
  with different values will fail. What is the rational behind this?
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------
  package paramtest is
    procedure string_in ( a_string : in string := "default value");
  end paramtest;
  
  package body paramtest is
    procedure string_in ( a_string : in string := "other default value") is
      begin
       null;
    end string_in;
  end paramtest;

There is no rationale; this is a compiler bug.  [RM 6.3.1] gives the
rules that permit the two specifications to differ, and the kind of
difference shown here is not allowed by them.