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: 103376,4d88fd7702b42427
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: sean@graph.es.hac.com (Sean McNeil)
Subject: Re: Access to subprograms
Date: 1995/04/03
Message-ID: <SEAN.95Apr3094546@graph.es.hac.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100815558
references: <3kpdq5$15is@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
 <D65sAw.3AI@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
organization: Hughes Aircraft Company
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <D65sAw.3AI@inmet.camb.inmet.com> stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) writes:

>   : |> From my casual and uninformed reading of the RM, it
>   : |> seems that something like "+"'Access is legal, even,
>   : |> heaven forbid, for a predefined instance of "+".
>
>   : It's prohibited by RM95 6.3.1, paragraphs 4, 7, and 11.  (Predefined "+"
>   : operators have convention Intrinsic, and 'Access is prohibited for
>   : subprograms with this convention.)  Instead, you can write
>
>   :    function My_Wrapper (Left, Right: Integer) return Integer is
>   :    begin
>   :       return Left + Right;
>   :    end My_Wrapper;
>
[...]

Does a renamed Predefined "+" operator also have convention Intrinsic status?

i.e.

function My_Plus(Left, Right : Integer) return Integer renames "+";

I assume it is, but I'd thought I'd ask.

Sean McNeil