From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Incompatibility involving universal expressions
Date: 1998/10/12
Date: 1998-10-12T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <F0q2G5.GqM.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 6vt19c$2iq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
jhassett@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: ...
: In any event, I'm happy to find that the supposed incompatibility
: is not real, but I'm chagrined at having been so misled by a faulty
: compiler.
Don't take it personally ;-). Getting the visibility of operators
just right is tricky, especially given that most Ada compilers try
to avoid "polluting" the symbol table with vast numbers of
predefined operators.
For what it is worth, my "favorite" operator overloading problem
is "aggregate & aggregate & aggregate & aggregate & ...".
There is an extremely nasty combinatorial explosion possible here if
there are any array-of-composite types around, since the compiler
is not "allowed" to look "inside" an aggregate until it decides
what is its type.
In any case, I'm glad to hear that the Ada 95 Green Hills
compiler did the right thing. It uses my favorite Ada 95
front end. ;-).
: - Jim Hassett
--
-Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc. Burlington, MA USA
An AverStar Company
prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-10-12 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-10-08 0:00 Incompatibility involving universal expressions jhassett
1998-10-12 0:00 ` jhassett
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tucker Taft [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox