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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b52a18baa90247c4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-04 21:44:55 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!paperboy.wellfleet.com!noc.near.net!inmet!dsd!stt From: stt@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Newbie Generic Reg Exp Pattern Matching Question Message-ID: Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. References: <36p5vsINNcjt@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 02:21:14 GMT Date: 1994-10-05T02:21:14+00:00 List-Id: In article , Robert I. Eachus 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.