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 20:06:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!c03.atl99!news.webusenet.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!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 22:06:43 -0600 Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:06:43 -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: <5a6dnSHERdpJtWOi4p2dnA@gbronline.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.9.86.83 X-Trace: sv3-Shs/jwIOWqmr99avgUOMRLZW929A/gzzW8uAeGJGf0lU4VaFttXcsc01lyBfAwof3TRGRVKsxqwu1Qu!4eP6X5Ft9BLiCAeLLbMUPrK7nRCi2AWSRdi+KGAF4ggEjPd3qUkoNr7LrLUlduohkYuAmEqyysDG 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:4242 Date: 2004-01-08T23:06:43-05:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > No. If there are more than one "=" visible that take access-to-integer, > then it would be ambiguous. In the example given, there was only one > such "=". The point is, resolution of "=" is just like any other > subprogram. There was no definition of "=" in the example, nor was there a type definition to imply one. > If you don't believe this is what the RM says (which was the original > question), you should quote chapter and verse. (I admit that this is a I don't recall the reference Robert Eachus used. I could go to groups.google.com but arguing is more fun.