Re: Abstract realizations can't be inherited??

[dewar@gnat.com]

In article <6s491q$usm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> I had a situation today where I wanted to declare a new tagged type which is
> very similar to an existing one I had. Ahh, classic OO. I just derive it from
> the existing type, and redefine the one operation that changed, right? Wrong!
>
> The existing type's operations that I wanted to inherit are overrides of
> abstract subprograms inherited from its parent type. The compiler blows up
> and points to 3.9.3(6), which appears to say that I have to explicitly
> override every abstract subprogram any "ancestor" type has. That means that
> if a type is declared abstract, none of the "standard" operations you declare
> for it can ever be inherited! What on earth is the logic behind that
> restriction?
>
> --
> T.E.D.

I suggest you post the code you are trying to compile. Obviously
you are doing something strange, but how can anyone guess what
if you don't post code. For example you might be trying to
derive a tagged type inside a procedure instead of inside a
package.

>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum