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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:12c4:: with SMTP id e4mr56944878qkl.359.1577735438511; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:50:38 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:aca:5303:: with SMTP id h3mr288221oib.109.1577735438129; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:50:38 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!g89no10021943qtd.0!news-out.google.com!w29ni111qtc.0!nntp.google.com!g89no10021935qtd.0!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:50:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=46.9.10.14; posting-account=bPTmZAoAAAC_6HP9XLKB9aAAxBa6BuOR NNTP-Posting-Host: 46.9.10.14 References: <1d96e0e1-7700-4947-9fcb-051a1203c703@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Is this a bug? From: reinert Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 19:50:38 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:57776 Date: 2019-12-30T11:50:37-08:00 List-Id: mandag 30. desember 2019 19.41.10 UTC+1 skrev Niklas Holsti f=C3=B8lgende: >=20 .... > One could ask, why is such an ambiguity not rejected (made illegal)?=20 > Probably because such an illegality rule would have made many illegal=20 > many Ada programs that were legal before the introduction of the=20 > "object.operation" syntax for tagged-record objects. >=20 I have had the understanding that the *intention* of primitive operations o= f tagged (record) types in some way can be looked at as an extension of the= actual record - especially if one uses the dot notation. In this case I w= ould expect (at least) a warning from the compiler. I discovered the ambiguity when I accidentally did put in an extra componen= t in a tagged record and with the same name as a primitive function of it (= introduced long ago). Then the (old) primitive function suddenly seemed to = give strange results :-) So after this experience I will be careful about p= ossible name collisions between record components and primitive functions. reinert https://korsnesbiocomputing.no/