From: Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Are values of non-limited actual type for a limited formal type built in place?
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2014-04-30T08:23:10-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f2b77f66-3055-4b0c-923f-163f32c66d2b@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <slrnlm24co.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:07:05 AM UTC-7, Natasha Kerensikova wrote:
>
> Is there anything in the RM about the build-in-place (or lack of
> thereof) of value of limited formal type but non-limited actual type?
The language rules about build-in-place refer to the "full type", so I would assume that the non-limited actual type is what matters here, not the limited formal type. RM 7.6(17.2/3).
There's a similar situation that doesn't involve generics; it's possible for a type to be declared as "limited private" in a package specification but then be non-limited in the private part. (This allows the body of the package to use := of the type, while preventing other packages from using the := operator.) Here, since the rules refer to the "full type", build-in-place is not required, even in other packages whose [partial] view of the type is limited.
-- Adam
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-30 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-30 15:07 Are values of non-limited actual type for a limited formal type built in place? Natasha Kerensikova
2014-04-30 15:23 ` Adam Beneschan [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox