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-Thread: 103376,461276586f65363c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:00:48 -0500 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1144179013.753791.169830@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <1144179981.495938.321410@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Predefined equality, reemergence Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:00:54 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-Wnq1Cyb7omKLoV0fOOP0TJHD0YuuQG1pF6ymS2qBZExY75OXWYwAZn1TDccaqoredQ7SCPB0Z0ru45r!T8E7H4+l+3tKmmtn/n1k8zRT44ZeFb+0WRDm0ekytk77O2mGECx0lWUtzoDXro74TOZ978BR1s7H!kGANKbLVkpXbTQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3722 Date: 2006-04-04T18:00:54-05:00 List-Id: "Adam Beneschan" wrote in message news:1144179981.495938.321410@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > I wrote: > > Hi, everyone, > > > > I'm having trouble understanding how the language rules about > > predefined equality, specifically 4.5.2(24), behave when the component > > type involved may be seen as "tagged" or "untagged" depending on > > whether you're inside an instance........... > > I mistakenly posted this before thoroughly checking the AI's. I found > that AI-123 appears to address this question. I've been looking over > this AI and I still don't know the answer to my question. I don't think AI-123 covers quite the same question. But let me take a quick stab at it. If in doubt, generics in Ada follow a substitution model; that is, the result is the same if you wrote a non-generic equivalent. As such, I certainly would not expect "=" (or anything else for that matter) to behave differently depending on the location of the call. After all, you have a *real* subprogram "=" (as opposed to an implicit one), and that subprogram is going to have only one body of code. Now, it might be interesting to find language rules to back up this conclusion. :-) Personally, I find this as a case of Dewar's Rule (the standard doesn't mean to say anything stupid, even if the actual words can be read to come to a stupid conclusion). I'll leave finding wording as an exercise for someone else... Randy.