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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d0452dbe16ac0df4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: ObjectAda vs Gnat -- bugs
Date: 1997/05/16
Message-ID: <dewar.863786613@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 241963458
References: <5lf6ka$nbg@service.polymtl.ca> <EA934C.M8x@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob Duff says

<<This looks legal, to me.  You're renaming calls to the enum lits (which
are like functions, in Ada).  Perhaps you meant to say:

    function Grey0 return Color_Type renames Gray0;
    ... and similarly for gr[ea]y1.

;-)  But either way, it should be legal.>>

Ah, interesting, so what Bob is saying is that since the functoin call
returns an object, it is legal to rename the object that it returns.
OK, if so, that's a surprise (to several people here), but that seems
right to me, though a bit odd.