Re: Overloading for T and T'Class

[bbalfour@acm.org (Brad Balfour)]

In article <3aa6mf$t3j@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
(David Weller) wrote:

> In article <CzAF7q.29E@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
> Tucker Taft <stt@dsd.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
> >The above is legal, though a call would generally be ambiguous.
>
> Ah good, then I'm entirely correct for saying the next thing to Brad
> Balfour:
>         See, Brad, I _told_ ya so!

Well Dave...
  If you'd stuck around for a few minutes longer you'd have witnessed the
site of 5 language lawyers/DRs (including Bob Duff and Gary Dismukes who
produced the right answer) all strugling with this one. We figured that
the amount of money that it cost to answer the one question (at language
lawyer rates) was nearly enough to pay off the national debt :-). The
consensus of the group was the same as Tucker's. They pointed me to
8.6(30) as the paragraph which confirms that while the declarations were
legal, calls to the subprograms could never be resolved.

So yes, you were right that the procedures could be written. However, I
still think I was right for thinking that they couldn't be used.

So I told ya so too :-)

Brad

-- 
Brad Balfour
CACI, Inc.
bbalfour@acm.org
(703) 824-4505
Team Ada member