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,df055ffdd469757d
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.89.133 with SMTP id bo5mr2385214wib.6.1361849334816;
        Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:28:54 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 bp2ni59445wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.103.MISMATCH!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!216.196.110.144.MISMATCH!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.teledata-fn.de!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!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: Class wide preconditions: error in GNAT implementation?
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:49:58 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyy5elpl4p.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <e155e2d6-ba1f-4fc0-a6e3-dafde002670b@googlegroups.com>
	<kfmlq1$puv$1@munin.nbi.dk> <lyhalcqa7v.fsf@pushface.org>
	<76e9fde1-3cbb-47e0-b578-b7b9be3ff9c6@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="4b4553eac4247089c1d7c0bcc27eb5e3";
	logging-data="19423"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ec2889Y9VDG83e9C+Lga1yVoHx2gJG4I="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qzvFEbWlASf5dmgPXgm2erqToSI=
	sha1:ILOcfnR7y7eOqbVY/aR+n0hEUuI=
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: 2013-02-18T17:49:58+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

ytomino <aghia05@gmail.com> writes:

> I am not aware of the intention of the writer of AARM (Randy?).
> Though as far as I read AARM and compare it with the Eiffel book,
>
>>      O := new B_Pack.T; 
>>      Put_Line ("passing 0 to an actual B_Pack.T"); 
>>      O.P (0); 
>
> Calling B_Pack.P via access A_Pack.T'Class should be failure.
>
> 6.6.1.38.a/3:
>
>> Pre'Class(es) that apply to the subprogram that the dispatching call
>> is resolving to, not the Pre'Class(es) for the subprogram that is
>> ultimately dispatched to. 
>
> "resolving to" = A_Pack.P
> "dispatched to" = B_Pack.P

Exactly so; both calls should have failed.