Re: Differences with/without .all

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:647ktoF2acjggU1@mid.individual.net...
> Hello people,
>
> Gnat is giving me an error depending on if I use the .all abbreviation or
not.
> I had the (unresearched) idea that there should be no differences besides
the
> aesthetic one[*], so I'm not sure if gnat's wrong or I'm (guess what ;) )
>
> One way or the other, I'd like to know the explanation. The particular
case
> that is giving me problems in GPL 2007 is:
>
> protected type Safe;
> type Safe_Access is access all Safe;
> function S return Safe_Access;
>
> S.Some_Procedure;
> --  This fails with
> --  Prefix of protected procedure or entry call must be variable
>
> S.all.Some_Procedure;
> --  This compiles and runs OK.
>
> Your judgment?

Looks like a bug to me. S.all is not a constant, and neither is
S(implicit.all). But S by itself is a constant. It's an easy mistake to
make, though, we used to have a very similar bug in Janus/Ada.

                         Randy.