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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,87a639f27a7cc47d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com>
Subject: Re: Attribute definition clause for 'External_Tag
Date: 1999/05/17
Message-ID: <7ho412$ncu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 478679091
References: <8b1tUD#n#GA.208@newstoo.hiwaay.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon May 17 03:56:18 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-05-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8b1tUD#n#GA.208@newstoo.hiwaay.net>,
  "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote:
> 1.  Should the 'Image attribute be allowed to define
>     an external tag?

No, because this is not a static expression (you ask why not,
and I am not sure if you are asking a question about the RM,
in which case, the answer is simply that it is not in the list
of static expressions), or about the philosophical design of
Ada 95. If the latter, the answer is simply to keep things
simple, you have to make an arbitrary cut on static expressions,
and this one did not seem important enough.

> 2.  Should the compiler reject identical External_Tag
>     attributes for types with a common ancestor?

Certainly not, what RM authority would there be for such
rejection. Sure it is a bit odd if the programmer does this,
but I see no illegality here. If you think it is illegal, please
give your argument from the RM.

A warning would be reasonable perhaps ...


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---