Re: Primitive Operations Question

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <DvEwtE.3Gz.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> stt@henning.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) writes:

> : Much to my dismay, the following procedure compiles on the WebAda
> : (GNAT 3.04) compiler.  By my reading of RM95 3.2.3, A and B don't
> : fit any part of the definition of primitive operations, so I
> : don't see why iheritance seems to be occurring.  When I replace
> : all three types with a hierarchy of tagged types, both calls
> : fail to compile, as I would have expected.
> 
> : Any insight would be much appreciated.
> 
> Your reading is correct; GNAT must have a bug in this area.

OK, I stuck my foot in my mouth on this one.  I missed the fact that
the types are not defined in a _package specification_ so 3.2.3(6)
does not apply.  Or is there something more mysterious going on here?

BTW, I have wondered at times why there was this restriction as
opposed to allowing any operation within the same immediate scope of
the type declaration be primitive.  It does seem a little cleaner to
have these things restricted to package specs, but it is also
(paradoxically) a little more confusing.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com