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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ed596f1f077b44e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Primitive Operations Question
Date: 1996/07/31
Message-ID: <DvFC1u.FJG@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171334552
references: <31FE812C.7B3D@ix.netcom.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-31T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <31FE812C.7B3D@ix.netcom.com>,
Vance Christiaanse  <cintech@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Much to my dismay, the following procedure compiles on the WebAda
>(GNAT 3.04) compiler.  By my reading of RM95 3.2.3, A and B don't
>fit any part of the definition of primitive operations, so I
>don't see why iheritance seems to be occurring.

I agree.  Sounds like a compiler bug.

>...  When I replace
>all three types with a hierarchy of tagged types, both calls
>fail to compile, as I would have expected.

Strange.  The word "tagged" appears nowhere in the definition in of
"primitive subprogram" in 3.2.3, so it shouldn't make any difference.

- Bob