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,
	WEIRD_PORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8ceb83dbf250e264,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mgk25@cl.cam.ac.uk (Markus Kuhn)
Subject: Problem with instantiating generic procedure
Date: 1999/07/17
Message-ID: <7mqfcq$9og$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 502146765
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-07-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Sorry, but after searching through the RM for almost an hour, I still
haven't figured out what I do wrong here and how I should fix this.
I declare in a package spec a procedure A and I want to implement the
procedure body of A by instantiating a generic procedure G. The following
is the shortest possible program that reproduces my problem:

-- bug.ads --
package Bug is
   
   procedure A;
   
end Bug;
-- bug.adb --
package body Bug is
   
   generic
   procedure G;
   
   procedure G is
   begin
      null;
   end G;
   
   procedure A is new G;
   
end Bug;
-------------

GNAT 3.11p on Linux insists on the following error message:

bug.adb:1:14: missing body for "A" declared at bug.ads:3
bug.adb:11:14: "A" conflicts with declaration at bug.ads:3

What is wrong with simply implementing a procedure declared
in the spec file in the body file by instantiating it from
a generic procedure of the exact same signature? Both A and G
have no parameters, so how can there be a conflict?

It would be nice if GNAT wrote out explicitely the two conflicting
sides, each time it uses the word "conflict" in an error message.

Any idea what is wrong here?

Markus

-- 
Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Email: mkuhn at acm.org,  WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>