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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9d8db3defac005a2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-22 01:34:07 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-26.cvx1.telinco.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Renaming an abstract function
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 03:14:02 -0000
Message-ID: <9tht9c$2j1ni$2@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
References: <9t1lp1$16unne$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
 <uvggau5ro.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <b4682ab7.0111161908.1d330e1@posting.google.com> <3BF6DE1F.6C31A357@home.com>
 <uherqbwj3.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-26.cvx1.telinco.net (212.1.136.26)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1006401644 2721522 212.1.136.26 (16 [25716])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16836
Date: 2001-11-22T03:14:02+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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