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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7a3b1c6915ea1273
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.189.202 with SMTP id gk10mr555756pbc.4.1326452310981;
        Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:58:30 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni177137pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How many Ada compiler bugs are here?
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <7610c0ee-db98-4530-afab-f29e187ee7d0@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
References: <01dd6341-9c3c-4dcb-90f8-6ac66c65eb66@z1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
 <jentdh$4sd$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <98adc34c-deed-4190-9e10-755cb886984f@n39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <r5zh8ht12meh$.wxldkm3c7893.dlg@40tude.net>
 <cb4706b1-0635-407f-9ed0-1e1d552ee279@n6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
 <5cm1d9xlavps$.1tjtc88r9ze21$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <6d352870-d204-4137-a562-5a0b67db1f80@h13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
 <15d37z3l8zllg$.3z2pj9cy5kvq.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.7.47.77
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1326452310 8551 127.0.0.1 (13 Jan 2012 10:58:30
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:58:30 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=91.7.47.77;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0;
 rv:8.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/8.0.1,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-01-13T02:52:29-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> >>> 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
> =A0 =A0type T (<>) is private;
> private
> =A0 =A0type T is new Integer;
> end P;

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

> with P; =A0use P;
> package Q is
> =A0 =A0function 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
> =A0 =A0function Foo return T is
> =A0 =A0begin
> =A0 =A0 =A0 raise Constraint_Error;
> =A0 =A0 =A0 return Dummy : T; -- No, that won't work!

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

> =A0 =A0end 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 forc=
es
> 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.