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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Can't export object of private type Date: 1999/03/04 Message-ID: <7bn2fc$8ih$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 451309418 References: <7bk6gh$6d9$2@plug.news.pipex.net> <7bmgfd$2d3$3@plug.news.pipex.net> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x2.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Mar 04 22:46:06 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-03-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7bmgfd$2d3$3@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Nick Roberts" wrote: > 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 ;-) Hint: any time you think something is "very nearly gibberish", it probably means you are missing a point :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own