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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,21f9679c40f65a8c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-02 19:51:04 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp.abs.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn3feed!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Steve Doiel" <nospam_steved94@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <3CA97235.974C8641@NO.SPAM.PLEASE.emw.ericsson.se>
 <mailman.1017746102.31836.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <5ee5b646.0204020818.1c6d9799@posting.google.com>
 <mailman.1017765842.8487.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <a8con5$2emm$1@ns.felk.cvut.cz>
 <5ee5b646.0204021702.bb04357@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Missing **-operator in GNAT 3.14?
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <G_uq8.182476$uA5.148901@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.225.227.101
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1017805862 12.225.227.101 (Wed,
 03 Apr 2002 03:51:02 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 03:51:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 03:51:02 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22030
Date: 2002-04-03T03:51:02+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:5ee5b646.0204021702.bb04357@posting.google.com...
> "Sergey Koshcheyev" <serko84@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<a8con5$2emm$1@ns.felk.cvut.cz>...
> > So the second operand of "**" has to be of type Natural,
> > regardless of the type of the first operand.
>
> Good going Sergey, I was wondering when someone might
> actually look up the declaration of "**". After all the
> diagnostic said that no matching "**" was declared, you
> would think the first reaction would be to go look at the
> declared "**" and see why it does not match :-)

Gee.  If I didn't know better I would think you were a professor who makes
his students think (and gives positive feedback when someone getss it right)
 :-)

SteveD