Re: Missing **-operator in GNAT 3.14?

From: "David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
Subject: Re: Missing **-operator in GNAT 3.14?
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:42:53 -0600
Date: 2002-04-02T10:42:53-06:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.1017765842.8487.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5ee5b646.0204020818.1c6d9799@posting.google.com

I do not dispute the correctness of the diagnostic, but what I am
curious about is why the diagnostic complains about "**", but
doesn't complain about "*".

What is the difference between these two operators, in this context?

David Hoos

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Missing **-operator in GNAT 3.14?

> "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote in message
news:<mailman.1017746102.31836.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
>
> > The fact that "*", and "**" are treated differently by
> > GNAT looks like a "bug" to me, though, and you should
> > probably report it to report@gnat.com
>
> Nothing to report here, the diagnostic is correct! If
> some earlier version of GNAT accepted this, it was a bug
> in that earlier version, since the code is wrong.
> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
>