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,a982d4d7a7ff56a9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Type qualification & entry calls - can they mix?
Date: 1996/08/30
Message-ID: <DwyEsx.1JB@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 177427987
references: <503itr$aij@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <503j4h$apb@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <503j4h$apb@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
Dale Stanbrough  <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>that should of course have said...
>
>	fred'(prots(1)).a;

It is illegal by the syntax rules, because a qualified_expression is an
expression but not a name, and the prefix before the dot has to be a
name (or an impliit_dereference, which is also a name -- aren't
ambiguous grammars fun?).

There are cases where I have wanted to use a qualification as a name, so
this restriction is mildly annoying.

Ada 95 changed some things from expressions to names.  Type_conversions,
for example.  IMHO, we should have gone all the way, and totally
eliminated the distinction between names and other expressions.  The
distinction is unhelpful, and in a few cases, gets in the way.
Certainly a qualified_expression should be allowed in exactly the same
places as a type_conversion.

- Bob