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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c9e8467ab75bb40 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-08 13:28:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!216.196.106.140!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:28:02 -0600 Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:28:01 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Derived types, private parts, abstract subprograms References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.77.160 X-Trace: sv3-VtaXok3WFtfO8hr+wiQdM9ea9RuK7K6SyeiZiygus+QdLKLmYwLIwFqAd98vfTzMR0YC76Fq6R/IB0o!WxG0Xtm9RRxxTkTkFiqDzpvnzANDi7WXCBkS2YTa8/6KWytaVHYqHGbaystwNA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6169 Date: 2004-03-08T16:28:01-05:00 List-Id: Adam Beneschan wrote: > We believe we have found an error in some Ada source code that is > publicly available on the Internet, that isn't supposed to compile but > that some compilers apparently let slip through. However, I wanted to > ask to make sure my interpretation of the RM is correct. I would suggest you send a bug report to the authors of the code, plus report this to Ada Comment. Incidently, I think the code as written is correct. Type T2 is not abstract, so types derived from it are not abstract types. But this is one of those "interesting corner cases" which should at least be documented... -- Robert I. Eachus "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." --Edmund Burke