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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d402e2c741db0d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-08 20:10:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:10:42 -0600 Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:10:44 -0500 From: Ze Administrator Reply-To: groleau+news@freeshell.org Organization: Ain't no organization here! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Language lawyer question: Equality on 'Access attributes References: <4LKdnRRNyv6AlmCiRVn-ig@comcast.com> <6bSdnYBKy_diPGCi4p2dnA@gbronline.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <5a6dnSDERdpetGOi4p2dnA@gbronline.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.9.86.83 X-Trace: sv3-prKkVjWUjb5YGpKHsNgEMonfke6SxAtRI8Mbhuh2Xs4ol4bNcGhUU+SXMSuGHBm9ParqkmCnZxKlFVR!Upp1a2uPdOHyJVB2TNc6VGaI7je2RQFNPH+1TrW2II0v/R9gT2614e80ewVuPkv9hpoEUMmSKOzx X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4243 Date: 2004-01-08T23:10:44-05:00 List-Id: Adam Beneschan wrote: > No, I'm not. If there are a dozen named access-to-integer types > directly visible at that point (which would mean that their "=" > operators are also visible), the RM rules clearly say that "=" would > be ambiguous. I think I briefly touched on that situation in my > original post. The question is, what should happen when only one such > "=" operator is a possibility. Every construct that implies a type without naming it effectively declares an anonymous type, right? Can any two constructs 'declare' the same anonymous type?