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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,158ce2376534c35d
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Derived private interface
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 08:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <866f12a8-ecdd-4d4c-b5de-76a70af0597f@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <27656578-65aa-48b9-9f89-4ebd4e0cb02a@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
 <0fe3b0f8-c064-444d-899d-640e891b58c3@w4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <128d8eb5-1cc6-47e3-a09b-b53a5ef289ce@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <4e141501$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1309965172 14283 127.0.0.1 (6 Jul 2011 15:12:52
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:12:52 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20094
Date: 2011-07-06T08:06:50-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jul 6, 12:55=A0am, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauh...@futureapps.de>
wrote:

> Instead of sprinkling the program with overriding indicators,
> shouldn't it be normal for a compiler to detect the status of
> a subprogram WRT overriding?

To further elaborate on what Christoph said: it does detect that, and
in fact you *never* need to say "overriding" or "not overriding".
Using those keywords will never change the meaning of a legal
program.  They're there just to protect against accidental errors,
which unfortunately were happening.  Misspelling is one way of
introducing an error.  Also, there are some cases where the rules
about what inherited subprograms are visible and where they're visible
aren't entirely intuitive, so that in some cases even when a
subprogram intended as overriding was spelled correctly, it still
didn't override as intended.  Errors like that don't usually lead to
further syntax errors from the compiler, so it's harder to diagnose
when the program doesn't run as expected.

                                           -- Adam