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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,fdbf6f8330ffcbf5
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Odd/Broken behavior DOTNET-GNAT vs GNAT regarding tagged types.
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <76b529fa-ec7e-4722-a883-3ff8869fe061@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <512951a6-bcc3-4c1a-a5ce-5bd3402d7143@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <8f6d51ed-69f9-4e76-a03e-b5601aa714e1@w30g2000prj.googlegroups.com>
 <4c89d345-c3ce-4ac4-a9d1-c1c93727f819@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
 <bcf3d59a-f6b5-4c1c-a3c7-918cbe610647@o15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.203.45
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1287799037 21818 127.0.0.1 (23 Oct 2010 01:57:17
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 01:57:17 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.203.45;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.10)
 Gecko/20100914 Firefox/3.6.10 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729;
 .NET CLR 4.0.20506),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14690
Date: 2010-10-22T18:57:16-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 22, 5:20 pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
>
> Is_Descendant_At_Same_Level does appear to be wrong in the DOTNET-GNAT
> version.  However, as an implementor, I would be very surprised if
> Is_Descendant_At_Same_Level tries to use external tags to compute the
> result.  I guess that's why I was confused by your original statement,
> that the difference in external tag behavior "shows why the behavior"
> of Is_Descendant_At_Same_level is broken.  It should be unrelated.
>
>                              -- Adam

Sadly, "should" and "are" are often significantly different. :(
Anyway, I did some poking around and, on opening the Ada.Tags.ADB
file, here's what I found:

package body Ada.Tags is

   type String_Access is access all String;

   -------------------
   -- CW_Membership --
   -------------------

   function CW_Membership (Obj_Tag : Tag; Typ_Tag : Tag) return
Boolean is
   begin
      --  ??? This needs to be implemented
      raise Program_Error;
      return False;
   end CW_Membership;

   -------------------
   -- Expanded_Name --
   -------------------

   function Expanded_Name (T : Tag) return String is
      function Ada_Name (T : Tag) return String_Access;
      pragma Import (CIL, Ada_Name,
"mgnat.adalib.GNAT_libc.ada_name");
   begin
      return Ada_Name (T).all;
   end Expanded_Name;

   ------------------
   -- External_Tag --
   ------------------

   function External_Tag (T : Tag) return String is
      function Ext_Tag (T : Tag) return String_Access;
      pragma Import (CIL, Ext_Tag,
"mgnat.adalib.GNAT_libc.external_tag");
   begin
      return Ext_Tag (T).all;
   end External_Tag;

   ------------------
   -- Internal_Tag --
   ------------------

   function Internal_Tag (External : String) return Tag is
      function Int_Tag (External : String) return Tag;
      pragma Import (CIL, Int_Tag,
"mgnat.adalib.GNAT_libc.internal_tag");
   begin
      return Int_Tag (External);
   exception
      when others => raise Tag_Error;
   end Internal_Tag;

   --------------------
   -- Descendant_Tag --
   --------------------

   function Descendant_Tag (External : String; Ancestor : Tag) return
Tag is
      pragma Unreferenced (Ancestor);
   begin
      --  ??? This needs to be implemented
      return Internal_Tag (External);
   end Descendant_Tag;

   ---------------------------------
   -- Is_Descendant_At_Same_Level --
   ---------------------------------

   function Is_Descendant_At_Same_Level
     (Descendant : Tag;
      Ancestor   : Tag) return Boolean
   is
      pragma Unreferenced (Descendant, Ancestor);
   begin
      --  ??? This needs to be implemented
      return False;
   end Is_Descendant_At_Same_Level;

   ----------------
   -- Parent_Tag --
   ----------------

   function Parent_Tag (T : Tag) return Tag is
   begin
      --  ??? This needs to be implemented
      return T;
   end Parent_Tag;

end Ada.Tags;


I think it is safe to say the culprit is this:  "--  ??? This needs to
be implemented"
Yeah, "not-implemented" is the same as "doesn't work" in many cases.