From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Type vs subtype about visibility of parent's private full definition
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 19:01:02 -0500
Date: 2013-05-16T19:01:02-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <kn3rvv$e6s$1@loke.gir.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 309db8ab-239d-4b06-9450-3a0b098f3953@googlegroups.com
"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message
news:309db8ab-239d-4b06-9450-3a0b098f3953@googlegroups.com...
...
>> What are your opinions about this issue?
>
>7.3.1(4) says that the Value component should be visible at that point.
>This is a compiler bug.
Humm, I'm not sure that GNAT is wrong here. There is a long tradition of
tests where you might thing components would be available but are not. I'm
not certain if this is one of those cases or not, but I direct your
attention to 7.3.1(5.1/3) [which exists to clarify the language because of a
bug that some Beneschan guy reported with record aggregates].
The reason I said that I'm "not sure" is that this is a very messy area, and
what is supposed to happen depends very much upon the exact example. (I
would blow this all away in my language redesign -- it has wasted far too
much time for its value.)
Randy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-17 0:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-15 8:13 Type vs subtype about visibility of parent's private full definition Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2013-05-15 14:44 ` Adam Beneschan
2013-05-15 20:45 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2013-05-16 13:54 ` Marc C
2013-05-17 0:01 ` Randy Brukardt [this message]
2013-05-17 15:48 ` Adam Beneschan
2013-05-16 15:29 ` Simon Wright
2013-05-16 20:25 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2013-05-16 20:28 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox