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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,556e5b18154df788
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.198.210 with SMTP id je18mr1264291wic.1.1365342139195;
        Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 ex12ni28531wid.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.87.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!xlned.com!feeder3.xlned.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news.n-ix.net!news.bawue.net!storethat.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!nuzba.szn.dk!pnx.dk!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interresting,
 possibly buggy behavior in GNAT generics w/ expression function.
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:18:36 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ly1uatibvn.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <ac196de8-8d24-4302-8e3b-e0007d691095@googlegroups.com>
	<lysj3eir9b.fsf@pushface.org> <kj5dn6$978$1@munin.nbi.dk>
	<65330bfe-39e4-4f7b-85f5-e06e9458bf29@googlegroups.com>
	<kjd9oi$966$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="72a7bb6120f61bc7749e29c9c2e535af";
	logging-data="1903"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qWzXx/w6cyUCYRGsL8ozr/tk1HSwffBw="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YdD10zM1ELz6WiGgqyS1PgbvbJw=
	sha1:mpHp/qt2KqpsQs+CbujPLySjAuQ=
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2013-04-02T09:18:36+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> OK, I didn't see that, because the OP I got only had a description of
> the spec in it, no code at all.

Actually, it was complete; it used expression functions. Fooled me, too,
at first.