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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,772ae8afc5db35f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: Can't export object of private type Date: 1999/03/04 Message-ID: <7bmgfd$2d3$3@plug.news.pipex.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 451223297 References: <7bk6gh$6d9$2@plug.news.pipex.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-03-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Well, I've worked out why GNAT doesn't complain about the inclusion of: function Solo_T return Access_Class_T_Type is abstract; It's perfectly legal Ada (q.v. RM95 3.9.3)! (Surprise surprise :-) However, the next question is: _why_ is it perfectly legal Ada? It's (very nearly) gibberish. At best, it simply announces that if we derive a type from Access_Class_T_Type, we might (if we fancy) be declaring a function which matches (and therefore overrides) the above. It never enforces any kind of promise. At worst, it's a confusing waste of space. Weird. Who wrote this funny language? (Own up ;-) ------------------------------------- Nick Roberts -------------------------------------