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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,73057f1a3ca11607
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!informatik.uni-bremen.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: record extension aggregate for returned type legal?
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:24:54 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <ckheim$s7o$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <ckfc4r$lsv$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <1738418.atIT6LYH9Z@linux1.krischik.com>
 <ckgq66$fsv$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <1940150.rU8f1KaX3L@linux1.krischik.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1097612694 28920 134.91.1.34 (12 Oct 2004
 20:24:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:24:54 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5104
Date: 2004-10-12T20:24:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
: T' (spoken T kick) tells the compiler that the next expression is of type T.
: i.E: Positive'(1) means that you want a Positive and not an Integer. If you
: won't say anything the compiler will choose automaticly.

In this case T is specific, and `make` is not a primitive operation
of T (because make is in child package B). So does the compiler
have a choice at all?

LRM 4.3.2, quoted in one compiler's error message, says,

  4. The expected type for an extension_aggregate shall be a single
     nonlimited type that is a record extension. If the ancestor_part
     is an expression, it is expected to be of any nonlimited tagged
     type.

Do I understand this phrase? The expected type in the return expression
for "function make return T" is the specific tagged type T.
In "return (n => 0)", there is no extension aggregate.
In "return (T with n => 0)", there is an extension aggregate,
the ancestor part being T.

T is not limited.
T is not an extension (a record extension?).
Does T have an ancestor (does T maybe count as an ancestor of T here?)


-- Georg