Re: Function definitions - with clarification

[montgrimpulo <aghte@hotlinemail.com>]

Direct reply to Shark8

What is the point of saying "the above won't work" when it was
obviously forgotten to indicate a type ? What is the point of changing my
function F into a procedure F with an embedded procedure G ?
This does not make sense at all.
 What is then left as your contribution ?

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 7:45:40 PM UTC+2, Shark8 wrote:
> On 22-Jun-14 05:34, montgrimpulo wrote:
> 
> > type Individual (P, Q, R) is record
> 
> > X : x_array (0..P);
> 
> > Y : y_array (0..Q);
> 
> > Z : z_array (0..R);
> 
> > end record;
> 
> 
> 
> The above won't work, your discriminants have no type-indication -- how 
> 
> is the compiler supposed to know what P, Q, and R are in the context of 
> 
> the type?
> 
> 
> 
> It;s a lot like nested scopes the following won't work because the new 
> 
> definition of X has no type;
> 
> 
> 
> Procedure F(X: in Integer) is
> 
>    Procedure G is
> 
>      X; -- Variable declaration missing type.
> 
>    begin
> 
>     null;
> 
>    end G;
> 
> begin
> 
>    null;
> 
> end F;
> 
> 
> 
> You want that to be like this:
> 
> 
> 
> type Individual (P, Q, R : Positive) is record
> 
> X : x_array (0..P);
> 
> Y : y_array (0..Q);
> 
> Z : z_array (0..R);
> 
> end record;