Re: Extending discriminant types

[christoph.grein@eurocopter.com]

On 21 Nov., 23:31, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote:
> But there is no place it say that it can not exist either! It up to the
> programmer! Plus "Base" is not a reserved word so it can be use in other
> places.

???? I gave the refrences in RM where deviations are allowed. This is
not one of them.

> >Implementations may define other attributes, but they are not allowed
> >to use attribute names defined in the standard.
>
>   Disprove by example RM 13.13 (84)
>
>     function My_Read(Stream : access Ada.Streams.Root_Stream_Type'Class)
>       return T;
>     for T'Read use My_Read; -- see 13.13.2
>
> Where the standard "Read" attribute is reassigned. In GNAT you are limited
> to the standard attributes only and that attribute structural definition but you
> can reassign them to user's code.

anon just makes himself sound awfully stupid. This is not a
redefinition of the 'Read attribute proper, but its proper use.

> Also, If you are correct it would of been listed in "RM Annex J" since it
> is valid under the Ada 83 specs.

No, Annex J just lists the obsolescent features, not the ones removed.
(This has already been stated before - and with the appropriate (AA)RM
references, but anon just refuses to understand).

> Georg Bauhaus
> Actually on the 20th you stated this:
> quote:
>   GNAT has -gnat83 as well, but rejects, too, because there are
>   neither tagged nor abstract types in Ada 83.
> unquote:
>
> So, which post is correct, Georg? Or is it you,  who is speading
> "false allegations"!

Of course it's you, anon, because -gnat83 must of course refuse the
use of tagged types.