Re: Full view of limited extension?

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 2:40:38 AM UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> > The "limited" keyword is already everywhere, there are no more places to 
> > put it. :-) Am I missing some dark language corners here?
> 
> There's clearly one more place to put it, since there existing a type 
> definition in the above code that doesn't include the word "limited". :-)

In the full view? Sure. GNAT says:

   "limited" keyword not allowed in private extension

Without it we have:

   full view of limited extension must be explicitly limited

So it's both required and forbidden, at least according to *some* version of GNAT.

I have to admit that I'm a bit tired of this, especially if checking the code against different compiler versions hits additional problems related to gprbuild being or not being available. Every compiler version that I tried has a different opinion on the code that used to compile and work (!) properly in the past.
This statement will not be popular on this group, but I have never had similar problems with C++ - and we are talking about language features that are already at least one decade old. Something went wrong somewhere.

I will keep trying, though.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com