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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.129.104.86 with SMTP id d83mr348034ywc.78.1477488983575;
        Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.157.33.166 with SMTP id s35mr363678otb.10.1477488982986;
 Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!newspeer1.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!g49no114498qtc.0!news-out.google.com!c26ni553itd.0!nntp.google.com!e187no43039itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <nu93p3$gd6$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=165.225.80.105;
 posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S
NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.225.80.105
References: <121792c4-3f9d-4d89-8ac5-88375ffb1110@googlegroups.com>
 <nu93p3$gd6$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5c6388d5-8545-4fa3-9c8c-228850e23028@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Full view of limited extension?
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:36:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:32177
Date: 2016-10-26T06:36:22-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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 t=
o=20
> > put it. :-) Am I missing some dark language corners here?
>=20
> There's clearly one more place to put it, since there existing a type=20
> 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 o=
f GNAT.

I have to admit that I'm a bit tired of this, especially if checking the co=
de 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 (!) prope=
rly in the past.
This statement will not be popular on this group, but I have never had simi=
lar 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.

--=20
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com