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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,5a88548f1bcf3510 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.66.81.200 with SMTP id c8mr4908663pay.1.1352489664215; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:34:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.223.98 with SMTP id qt2mr4043505pbc.20.1352489664200; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:34:24 -0800 (PST) Path: s9ni1660pbb.0!nntp.google.com!kt20no39737973pbb.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 11:34:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <75ace21e-bb60-42bf-901b-53f5808b4e84@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Overring function and its returned type From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:34:24 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-11-09T11:34:24-08:00 List-Id: On Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:15:06 PM UTC-8, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne= ) wrote: =20 > If that could be OK to allow overriding functions to change their return = =20 > type to a compatible type when this type is class wide, then is there a = =20 > chance to add it as a last minute change for Ada 2012? Although I'm not on the ARG, I can confidently say that the answer to this = question is "absolutely not". What you're asking for is a major change tha= t would need a lot of consideration to get the semantics right and make sur= e it wouldn't have any impact on any other part of the language. And at th= is point, I don't think even minor changes are being considered unless they= 're actual errors or perhaps editorial issues. =20 -- Adam