Re: Abstract realizations can't be inherited??

[dennison@telepath.com]

In article <EyK4AB.G5L.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
  stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote:
> dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> : In article <EyGJID.858.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
> :   stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote:
>
> : > This sounds like a compiler bug.  If a type is non-abstract, then by
> : > defintion all of its primitive procedures are non-abstract, even
> : > if an overriding is done in the private part.
> : >
> : > Time to file a bug report...
> : I know I really should take Tucker's word for this, but I'd appreciate it if
> : someone would compile this example w/ a non-Aonix compiler and see if they
get
> : an error. I'd hate to send in a bug report reading, "Tucker Taft says this
is
> : wrong".
>
> Luckily, the response can also be "this bug has just been fixed by TT" ;-).
>

You were right. The tech-support guy was very sceptical until I mentioned your
name. Its like magic!

They also told me that if I had said "Robert Dewar" they would have been much
less helpful. I guess they're still a little ticked about having half their
customers call up and demand 80-bit floats :-).

--
T.E.D.

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