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: 103376,ae928372f6e8af2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsgate.cistron.nl!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!uninett.no!news.banetele.no!news.hacking.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: Jacob Sparre Andersen Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Problem with generic parameter Date: 22 Jun 2005 15:09:01 +0200 Organization: hacking.dk - Doing fun stuff with open source Sender: sparre@hugin.crs4.it Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: hugin.crs4.it Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: xyzzy.adsl.dk 1119446053 31886 156.148.71.67 (22 Jun 2005 13:14:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hacking.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:14:13 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11559 Date: 2005-06-22T15:09:01+02:00 List-Id: Marius Amado Alves wrote: > I think this is legal, Thanks. > so the compiler is buggy. :-( > But I find it an unlogical generic idiom, and probably the bug has > passed unnoticed before for this reason. That is, nobody wrote this > before. What I find unlogical is the Generic_Root.Child > parameters. I would find it logical to represent the array type as > an exported entity instead of a generic parameter. > > generic > type Indices is (<>); > package Generic_Root > type Measurement is array (Indices) of Measurement; The reason that I don't do that is that that would have to instantiate a copy of Generic_Root _and_ Generic_Root.Child for each choice of array indices. I will report the problem to ACT and Debian. - And use your suggestion as a workaround. Jacob -- Would you also prefer not to have had to read Victor Hugo? Vote for EU software patents! http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,1510566,00.html