Re: limited allocated classwide types

[Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>]

On Nov 3, 4:35 pm, Simon Belmont <sbelmont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> More vexxing is that I can alter what happens in the presumably
> incorrect case simply by adding, removing, and reordering the
> functions in the spec (which smacks heavily of a mixed up vtable, to
> excuse the c++ terminology), which the second response more-or-less
> supports.

Although there's no official Ada terminology, I think, a paragraph in
the AARM calls it the "dispatch table".  We Ada people tend to prefer
readable English over incomprehensible abbreviations.

> Though it is satisfying to hear that this is most likely a compiler
> error, and not poor programming skills on my part, I can't help but
> feel unnerved by this.  I am only months into being an Ada programmer
> and not trying to anything that isn't well described and ostensibly
> supported, so it seems odd that such a basic test case would uncover
> and compiler bug.  Moreover, one of the points of pride is that Ada
> compilers are heavily tested and verified for safety critical apps,
> which this seems to undercut.  Not to sound snarky, but I personally
> have never found a bug in a GPL C compiler.

You haven't run into any number of bugs that get dismissed as
"Duplicate of Bug 323", I guess.  Like http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12331
which is something I ran into some years ago.

> In either case, just to confirm, this is the "correct" way to code
> this?

I don't know if this is the best way without knowing more about what
your entire program.  But I don't see anything wrong with it.  It's
probably correct enough.

                            -- Adam