Re: How many Ada compiler bugs are here?

[AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>]

> >>> Of course this is legal since it's in the scope of the full view (it's
> >>> a definite type in the full view, an indefinite only in the partial
> >>> view).
>
> >> Only if you have that full view in the function body.
>
> > What do you want to say? Isn't that exactly what I said?
>
> package P is
>    type T (<>) is private;
> private
>    type T is new Integer;
> end P;

That's a severe design mistake. You cannot declare objects of T -
there are no constructors.

> with P;  use P;
> package Q is
>    function Foo return T;
> end Q;

You have to declare constructors in P (I know you know that, so why do
you write such nonsense?).

PS: I know that Foo in your terminology is not a constructor.

> package body Q is
>    function Foo return T is
>    begin
>       raise Constraint_Error;
>       return Dummy : T; -- No, that won't work!

So what? Yeah, that's not in the scope of the full view.

>    end Foo;
> end Q;
>
> The requirement to have a meaningless return might turn to be a serious
> trouble. The example above might look constructed, but things like this
> happen relatively frequently in large projects. And when they do, it forces
> interfaces and package hierarchies reworked. Nasty thing.

Well, yes, design errors happen. Everyone knows that...

But this example is a silly mistake. You know that.