Single Entry: a Buzzword?

[macrakis@harvard.UUCP (Stavros Macrakis)]

steve@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Steven Holtsberg) asks <2608@sdcrdcf.UUCP>:
> Does anyone know the definition of a "single entry"?

Mark Biggar (markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP) suggests: 	       <2610@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
> I took this to mean that a tasks entires can be overloaded independently
> and not as a group.

This is not correct.

David Rosenblum (rose@Shasta.ARPA) correctly replies:	    <86@Shasta.ARPA>
> Task entries can be either single entries or members of an entry family.
> Thus, entry family members CANNOT be overloaded.  This should answer your
> question.
...but continues:
> My favorite undefined buzzphrase in the LRM is "unconstrained types
> with discriminants," which I eventually found out includes ...

`Single entry' is NOT an `undefined buzzword': it is defined exactly
where I expected it to be defined, in the section that defines entries:

    The term <single entry> [means] any entry other than one of a family.
						9.5/3

Presumably `single' was meant to contrast with `family'.  In any case,
it ought to have been entered into the index.  Note also 9.5/5 re
overloading of single entries and entry families.

As for "unconstrained types with discriminants," I can't find any
explicit definition (although in this case there IS an index entry), but
it means exactly what it says, namely an unconstrained type (3.3/4) that
has discriminants (3.7.1/3).

	-s