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: 103376,896d86ef3723978c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: maintenance of overriding subprograms
Date: 1997/09/12
Message-ID: <dewar.874086245@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 272022438
References: <340C2EA5.B9F@gsfc.nasa.gov> <340DCE1D.6C5F@bix.com>
 <dewar.873631018@merv> <5v3dlu$pgu$1@miso.it.uq.edu.au>
 <dewar.873939443@merv> <5v87gd$r00$1@miso.it.uq.edu.au>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<  The main point is that not syntactically distinguishing between overriding
declarations and new declarations is prone to undetected errors.>>

Yes indeed, the general approach for warnings we were considering is
the following

For a derived type, if you introduce a primitive operation with a name
that is a close misspelling of an inherited primitive operator, and the
inherited primitive operator is nt otherwise overridden, then you give
a warning (and of coruse Initialise with no Initialize would just be a
special case of this check).