Ambiguous character literals

[adam@irvine.com]

I think this program should fail to compile, but GNAT 3.10 doesn't give
any error messages.  Am I interpreting the RM correctly?  Or is there
some nuance I'm missing in the RM that causes STANDARD.CHARACTER to be
preferred in a case like this?

Also, I think the program should still be illegal if one or both of the
enumeration type declarations is deleted (since "<" is still visible for
CHARACTER and WIDE_CHARACTER).  Is my understanding correct?

				-- thanks, Adam

procedure test is
    type etype is ('d', 'c', 'b', 'a');
    type etype2 is ('a', 'b', 'c', 'd');
    b : boolean;
begin
    b := ('d' < 'b');
end test;

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own