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,d0452dbe16ac0df4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: ObjectAda vs Gnat -- bugs
Date: 1997/05/16
Message-ID: <EA934C.M8x@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 241809587
References: <5lf6ka$nbg@service.polymtl.ca>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5lf6ka$nbg@service.polymtl.ca>,
granger <louis.granger@mail.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>Here is a shortened version of a package that I wrote.

Is this supposed to be the obfuscated Ada contest?
I mean, grey vs. bray makes my brain hurt.
                 ^^^^ Of course, I meant to type "gray", but I like the
typo, so I'll leave it in.  ;-)

>It compiles without any error with ObjectAda.
>With gnat3.09, I have the following errors:
>
>rgbcolor.ads:18:41: expect object name in renaming
>rgbcolor.ads:19:49: expect object name in renaming
>
>Which of the compilers is correct ?
>
>If gnat is correct ( probably gnat!!!),

Why do you say "probably gnat"?

>... the internal package RGB_Value does
> not have any influence, how can I have the enumeration values Gray* and
> Grey* of the same type or subtype with the same internal value ?
>
>Thank in advance for any suggestion.
>
>package rgbcolor is
>	package RGB_Value is
>		type Color3  is
>		record
>			red, green, blue : Float;
>		end record;
>		Gray0	: constant Color3 := ( 0.000, 0.000, 0.000 );
>		Grey0	: Color3 renames Gray0;
>		Gray1	: constant Color3 := ( 0.012, 0.012, 0.012 );
>		Grey1	: Color3 renames Gray1;
>	end RGB_Value;
>	
>	type Color_Type is ( Gray0, Gray1 );
>	
>	subtype Grey_Color_Type is Color_Type range Gray0 .. Gray1;
>	
>	Grey0	: Color_Type renames	Gray0;	-- line in error---------------
>	Grey1	: Color_Type renames	Gray1;	-- line in error---------------

This looks legal, to me.  You're renaming calls to the enum lits (which
are like functions, in Ada).  Perhaps you meant to say:

    function Grey0 return Color_Type renames Gray0;
    ... and similarly for gr[ea]y1.

;-)  But either way, it should be legal.

Package RGB_Value has nothing to do with this, as far as I can tell.

- Bob