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: a07f3367d7,fdbf6f8330ffcbf5
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Odd/Broken behavior DOTNET-GNAT vs GNAT regarding tagged types.
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <a9d48680-da94-44c5-a699-c5b0ca7bb575@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <512951a6-bcc3-4c1a-a5ce-5bd3402d7143@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <8f6d51ed-69f9-4e76-a03e-b5601aa714e1@w30g2000prj.googlegroups.com>
 <4c89d345-c3ce-4ac4-a9d1-c1c93727f819@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
 <bcf3d59a-f6b5-4c1c-a3c7-918cbe610647@o15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
 <76b529fa-ec7e-4722-a883-3ff8869fe061@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1288020860 17876 127.0.0.1 (25 Oct 2010 15:34:20
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:34:20 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR
 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14754
Date: 2010-10-25T08:34:19-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 22, 6:57=A0pm, Shark8 <onewingedsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> =A0 =A0function Is_Descendant_At_Same_Level
> =A0 =A0 =A0(Descendant : Tag;
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Ancestor =A0 : Tag) return Boolean
> =A0 =A0is
> =A0 =A0 =A0 pragma Unreferenced (Descendant, Ancestor);
> =A0 =A0begin
> =A0 =A0 =A0 -- =A0??? This needs to be implemented
> =A0 =A0 =A0 return False;
> =A0 =A0end 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