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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,70414f56d810c10c X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.66.161 with SMTP id g1mr519827pbt.10.1316598915429; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Path: lh7ni1750pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!fi7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: ytomino Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: discriminant questions Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <9f37b726-d80b-4d24-bf3f-28a14255f7fd@s20g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <708a1202-d480-451b-9b55-00b31ad9c452@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com> <1kx7ltnsal62q.195k449mr947t.dlg@40tude.net> <1axnuyk0kn2ru.cda1cs7skqcr$.dlg@40tude.net> <7a3yxx95g6y1.1g6vlleaflqvj.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 220.104.106.214 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1316598915 26296 127.0.0.1 (21 Sep 2011 09:55:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:55:15 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: fi7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=220.104.106.214; posting-account=Mi71UQoAAACnFhXo1NVxPlurinchtkIj User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: HNKUARELSC X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_8) AppleWebKit/535.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/14.0.835.163 Safari/535.1,gzip(gfe) Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18066 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: 2011-09-21T02:55:14-07:00 List-Id: > The key question is how formal aspects get matched by actual aspects, > literally or not. Well. It's implementation-defined. http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12aarm/html/AA-13-3-1.html -- There are no language-defined aspects that may be specified -- on generic formals, but implementations might support some. It's probably that formal aspect is ignored for matching, like pragma Inline, by my interpretation. The right answer will be told by next version of GNAT with AdaCore's interpretation. (Incidentally, I hope next version compiler that will accept an instantiated type as the type of discriminant of formal type. Yesterday, I searched ACATS for this case, but nothing. There was no test about this also in class-B. So it's perhaps not explicitly disallowed in standard. In my guess, it's in the range of the interpretation allowed the compiler, since formal discriminant had been minor and unused until accessor appeared...)