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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx28.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64;
 rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/32.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Function definitions - with clarification
References: <f12eba4c-2757-4496-861b-101cb7e355d6@googlegroups.com>
 <aDEpv.32899$dk.5184@fx04.iad>
 <bad50ba6-9ea4-410f-9574-a33f30f0fe0f@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <bad50ba6-9ea4-410f-9574-a33f30f0fe0f@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <SwGpv.37223$LR3.6379@fx28.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@teranews.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 19:55:30 UTC
Organization: TeraNews.com
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 13:55:29 -0600
X-Received-Bytes: 2352
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3021843695
X-Original-Bytes: 2656
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:187166
Date: 2014-06-22T13:55:29-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 22-Jun-14 12:03, montgrimpulo wrote:
> Direct reply to Shark8
>
> What is the point of saying "the above won't work" when it was
> obviously forgotten to indicate a type?

That's exactly the point.
If you're giving us incorrect stuff then it's hard to determine what 
your intent really is. This is opposed to either writing out psudo-code 
OR non-compiling code within otherwise syntactically-correct code [i.e 
"what's the syntax for..."].

IOW, the intent is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for others 
to understand/help.

To further clarify, there's the high-level intent of problem 
description, which you've given; but there's also the intent with 
respect as to how you are going to implement the solution. (As I pointed 
out earlier, you could have used generic-parameters on your solution OR 
discriminated record. Both are equally valid for a solution.)

> What is the point of changing my
> function F into a procedure F with an embedded procedure G ?

To show that there are different scopes and you cannot have a name infer 
types from outer scopes... which is what it really looked like you were 
trying to do by having the discriminants w/o type.

(It's also a bad idea for you to be relying on parameter/variable values 
in type/subtype definitions, until you really understand the implications.)

> This does not make sense at all.
> What is then left as your contribution?

If you don't want my help, you don't have to take it.