From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Fixed point operator visibility question
Date: 14 Oct 94 10:26:50
Date: 1994-10-14T10:26:50+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <EACHUS.94Oct14102651@spectre.mitre.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mlc@iberia.cca.rockwell.com's message of Thu, 13 Oct 1994 13:41:31 CDT
In article <00985E28.98D9FB40.9907@iberia.cca.rockwell.com> mlc@iberia.cca.rockwell.com (Michael Cook) writes:
> My viewpoint is that fixed point division is defined by package
> STANDARD, see Ada RM, section 4.5.5, para 9-11. And so the division
> should be visible without the 'use' clause.
> Vendor A's claim is that the example deals with visibility of
> operations of derived types. The argument is that Fixed_Type is
> a derived type of an anonymous predefined fixed point type (RM
> 3.5.9 para 9).
You are correct. And that is the most bogus version of "its not a
bug it is a feature" I have ever seen.
There is no fixed by fixed division operation defined for
Fixed_Type or its parent, so whether or not it is a derived type is
irrelevant. In any case the division operation for _universal_fixed_
that applies here is defined in STANDARD, and will be visible without
the use clause.
Give the vendor fifty lashes with a wet noodle, served with heaping
amounts of supercilious scorn. ;-)
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1994-10-14 10:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1994-10-13 18:41 Fixed point operator visibility question Michael Cook
1994-10-14 10:26 ` Robert I. Eachus [this message]
1994-10-14 14:42 ` Norman H. Cohen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox