Re: Renaming an abstract function

["Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk>]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> ...
> Well, the full text of the AI talks about renaming an _inherited_
> subprogram, not the abstract subprogram itself. It does not discuss
> exactly what should happen for this case.

Precisely my point (in parallel post).

> Simply following the rules for inheriting abstract subprograms, you
> are required to give an overriding subprogram for any derived type.
> Thus, if the renaming is valid, you'd have to override both P and "*",

This is correct.

> which is surely not the intent.

Yes it is the intent. The Rationale (8.3) makes this clear.

> So it seems reasonable to conclude
> that the renaming itself is invalid.

No, I don't think so.

> We could propose a "renaming inheritance" rule that says an equivalent
> renaming is applied to the overriding subprogram; that is the intent
> of this renaming.

Intriguing idea, but it is already laid down: the renaming creates a new
'slot', thus both (the original and renamed) subprograms can be (and, in the
case of an asbtract subprogram, would need to be) overridden separately.

>
> --
> -- Stephe

--
Best wishes,
Nick Roberts