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: 103376,2683e73445986fa2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Derivation + Access Discriminant = Headaches
Date: 1999/03/20
Message-ID: <7cus2k$d6g@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 456726496
References: <m3r9qlvpuv.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <7cu23r$miu@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <m3zp591hq6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
Organization: Netcom
X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Mar 19  7:02:12 PM CST 1999
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-03-19T19:02:12-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <m3zp591hq6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
	Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:

>Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>  On GNAT, an equivalent type hierarchy works fine.  
>
>Which version of GNAT are you using?  On what OS?  On what machine?  
>
>I'm having this problem using a home-grown port of v3.11p, so it may be
>a porting problem.

 Matthew,

 I am using GNAT 3.11 on Windows 95 for this experiment.  Notice that
 my code is just a little different, but the discriminant model is 
 identical.  Your example is distributed over three packages; Mine
 is all in the same package.  Yours uses limited private types and 
 mine uses public limited records.  There may some other issue that is 
 causing your error.  The discriminant constraints seem to work fine
 in GNAT 3.11, but may have a problem with limited private -- should
 not have, but nobody's perfect.  :-)

 Richard