From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Subject: Re: Odd/Broken behavior DOTNET-GNAT vs GNAT regarding tagged types.
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2010-10-25T08:34:19-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a9d48680-da94-44c5-a699-c5b0ca7bb575@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 76b529fa-ec7e-4722-a883-3ff8869fe061@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com
On Oct 22, 6:57 pm, Shark8 <onewingedsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> function Is_Descendant_At_Same_Level
> (Descendant : Tag;
> Ancestor : Tag) return Boolean
> is
> pragma Unreferenced (Descendant, Ancestor);
> begin
> -- ??? This needs to be implemented
> return False;
> end Is_Descendant_At_Same_Level;
Well, that could potentially explain why Is_Descendant_At_Same_Level
is returning an incorrect result, although it probably needs more
investigation to find out for certain, possibly by putting some
Put_Lines in the routine to trace its complicated logical
path. :) :) :)
-- Adam
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-25 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-22 3:35 Odd/Broken behavior DOTNET-GNAT vs GNAT regarding tagged types Shark8
2010-10-22 8:01 ` Georg Bauhaus
2010-10-22 16:22 ` Adam Beneschan
2010-10-22 19:58 ` Shark8
2010-10-22 23:20 ` Adam Beneschan
2010-10-23 1:57 ` Shark8
2010-10-25 15:34 ` Adam Beneschan [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox