Re: Extending discriminant types

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

Georg Bauhaus

Actually on the 20th you stated this:

quote:
  GNAT has -gnat83 as well, but rejects, too, because there are
  neither tagged nor abstract types in Ada 83.
unquote:

So, which post is correct, Georg? Or is it you,  who is speading 
"false allegations"!


In <4928ecad$0$32681$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>, Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
>anon wrote:
>
>> Since, the use of "base" attribute (as Adam stated) 
>> was used in this way and legal in Ada 83 specs. Then "GNAT 2005-2008" 
>> should still allow this statement, if the statement "Pragma Ada_83 ;" or 
>> command line "-gnat83" option is use.  But as someone else reported this is 
>> not the case.
>
>GNAT does handle 'Base specially when the user specifies
>-gnat83 on the command line. And, this is easily demonstrated
>by trying corresponding source with any of the versions of
>GNAT that have been mentioned, preventing the spread of false
>allegations.
>
>> As for GNAT 5.01 and GNAT Pro 6.01, well they were not written under the 
>> DOD and the RM only control.
>
>Huh? In DoD we trust. The rest of us is bugs.