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.863817409@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 242011215
References: <337B65FC.98D@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <EAA25I.9nn.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <JSA.97May16150307@alexandria>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jon says

<<And, what is more, this is a _very_ useful thing.  Several nice
examples are in the Rationale!>>

(talking about renaming the results of function calls)

Most certainly! But I don't think this particular use (providing an entirely
redundant way of renaming enumeration literals) is one of these _very_ useful
thinks :-)

Note that the two forms of renaming are not quite equivalent:

   type x is (a1, a2);
   type y is (a3, a4);

   function z return x renames a1;
   function z return y renames a3;
   --  legal

   z : x renames a1;
   z : y renames z3;
   --  illegal