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: 103376,93dce172c8d3e2fb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Which compiler is correct?
Date: 1997/06/19
Message-ID: <EC05Hz.IvI@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 251131319
References: <33A77C54.5484@bix.com> <EBz083.9EB@world.std.com>
 <ud205z1ifw.fsf@tanana.llnl.gov>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <ud205z1ifw.fsf@tanana.llnl.gov>,
John Woodruff <woodruff1@llnl.gov> wrote:
>    > The rules for this stuff are somewhat arcane.  See 3.4 and 7.3.1.
>    (tacit agreement, followed by a new case:)

;-)

>Here is another inquiry of the type "which compiler is correct." ...

First of all, you and the earlier poster need a strong lecture, or
perhaps should be sent back to remedial programming school.  Why?
Because you use one-letter identifier names for compilers (r and g,
here).  Or are you trying to mimic those stupid laundry soap ads that
talk about "the leading brand" without naming it?

;-) ;-)

>   Bad.I := 2 ;  -- compiler "g" reports error

Looks legal to me.  See 7.3.1(4).  If you don't understand it, execute
the following in your head:

    <<Label>>
      Read 7.3.1;
    goto Label;

And when this completes, all will be clear.  And then I'll *goto*
remedial programming school, for uttering the cuss word "goto".

In case you hadn't guessed, I don't much like 7.3.1.

See also 3.4(14.b).

>According to one compiler the component of type Bad_Obj is an "undefined
>selector".  I am unable to think of a reason why the body of the child
>package can reference the parent's private declaration of Obj for one,
>but not for the other derived types.

In the business, we call this a "bug".  ;-)

- Bob