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 10.181.13.179 with SMTP id ez19mr3488242wid.5.1364939444047;
        Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p18ni33726wiv.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.87.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newspeer1.nac.net!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.bbs-scene.org!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: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:45:33 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyobe2i7si.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <ac196de8-8d24-4302-8e3b-e0007d691095@googlegroups.com>
	<lysj3eir9b.fsf@pushface.org>
	<1k6ipbtagwzw4$.1dv47rfygcedg.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="72a7bb6120f61bc7749e29c9c2e535af";
	logging-data="23402"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188tlnMr4DS21WZcpbLVoPQU9wlxcKHuAg="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uyJ8VE+Ra4OY2nwtnQis4gQeXpA=
	sha1:XyyTrF/U292OR3mjzn1o+xjxMmk=
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2013-03-29T14:45:33+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:45:04 +0000, Simon Wright wrote:
>
>> I don't know whether this is a language problem
>
> It is a general language problem that generic specifications and bodies
> cannot be fully checked. Matched formal parameters only is not sufficient.
> Much better than with C++ templates, but still same mess.

But, do you think it should have failed at instantiation? Not good, but
not as bad as executing the wrong code.