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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9cfa83146b0781ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-15 20:50:13 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!hopper.acm.org!async02.acm.org!user From: bbalfour@acm.org (Brad Balfour) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Overloading for T and T'Class Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:32:41 -0500 Organization: ACM SIGAda Message-ID: References: <3a6goo$j7s@starbase.neosoft.com> <3aa6mf$t3j@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: async02.acm.org Date: 1994-11-15T23:32:41-05:00 List-Id: In article <3aa6mf$t3j@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) wrote: > In article , > Tucker Taft 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