From: stt@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Newbie Generic Reg Exp Pattern Matching Question
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 02:21:14 GMT
Date: 1994-10-05T02:21:14+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Cx6H7F.JC2@inmet.camb.inmet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: EACHUS.94Oct4112939@spectre.mitre.org
In article <EACHUS.94Oct4112939@spectre.mitre.org>,
Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>In article <36p5vsINNcjt@edna.cc.swin.edu.au>
>944166@edna.swin.edu.au (Jimmy Fang) writes:
>
> 33 with function "=" ( Left : in ITEM;
> 34 Right : in ITEM) return Boolean;
> **
> *****E equality parameters must be same limited type [LRM 6.7/4]
> **
> 35
>
> This certainly looks like a compiler bug. It is illegal to
>explicitly declare an equality function for a private type, (except by
>using the "Goodenough" workaround), but as a generic subprogram
>parameter it is legitimate.
Sorry, I don't agree. The compiler looks right. The John Goodenough
"workaround" takes advantage of the fact that a formal limited type
can be instantiated with an actual non-limited type. But the restriction
about "=" being defined only for limited types applies in generic
formal parts as well as outside.
> First report the bug to your compiler vendor...
Don't bother. The compiler is enforcing the Ada 83 rules.
By the way, in Ada 9X, there is no such limitation.
> ...
> Robert I. Eachus
-Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com
Intermetrics, Inc.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1994-10-05 2:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1994-10-03 14:54 Newbie Generic Reg Exp Pattern Matching Question Jimmy Fang
1994-10-04 11:29 ` Robert I. Eachus
1994-10-04 22:03 ` Stef Van Vlierberghe
1994-10-05 2:21 ` Tucker Taft [this message]
1994-10-11 16:10 ` William Fang
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox