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: 103376,1ef593126ef45087 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Generic children, instances and visibility... Date: 1997/04/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 234317124 Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.camb.inmet.com References: Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony (jsa@alexandria) wrote: : In article <334BA5F2.4111@gsfc.nasa.gov> Stephen Leake writes: : > with Parent.Child; : > with Inst_Types; : > package Parent.PC_Inst is new Parent.Child (Inst_Types.It); : > : > gnat says neither case allows visibility: : True. But that may or may not be accurate (though it probably is...) Since GNAT does not complain when you compile the generic, it should not complain when you compile the instantiation. Any error during instantiation is suspicious, given the Ada 95 generic "contract" model. If there is an error, it must be something that is due to a usage of the formal type in the spec of the generic, not the body. Hence this looks like a compiler bug (albeit a subtle one). : ... : Tucker, Bob, Norman - any comments appreciated. See above. : /Jon : -- : Jon Anthony : Organon Motives, Inc. : Belmont, MA 02178 : 617.484.3383 : jsa@organon.com -Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/ Intermetrics, Inc. Burlington, MA USA