RE: which compiler is right?

[Lionel.DRAGHI@fr.thalesgroup.com]

| -----Message d'origine-----
| De: Randy Brukardt [mailto:randy@rrsoftware.com]
...
| 
| "Which compiler is right?"
| 
| Typically, that's irrelevant. You have to avoid any construct 
| that doesn't
| work with any of the compilers, because the turn-around time 
| for a fix is
| too long to wait for. (That's especially true for something 
| like Claw.)
| Anyway...
Typically, yes, but not in my case.
Because of projects roadmap, I have the possibility to wait for ObjectAda
fixes.  
But if GNAT is wrong accepting this code, then I must change it now.

And also (like for the other anectotical example I posted yesterday), even
if it's easy to avoid, I don't want the Ada compilers I am using disagreeing
on Ada semantics.


...
| I think the program is illegal, but certainly not for the reasons that
| ObjectAda is reporting. But perhaps this is one of the cases 
| where something
| completely unrelated is fixing a bug elsewhere in the 
| language (because I
| cannot figure out a reason for it to be illegal other than 
| freezing - which
| has nothing to do with this).
| 
| The inherited Priority routine is primitive by 3.2.3. 8.3 
| then says that the
| new declaration overrides it. Of course, this is bogus, 
| because the type is
| not even declared in this scope, so any such overriding has 
| to be illegal.
| But I can't find any reason for that. OA says that the type 
| is frozen, but
| there really isn't any reason to assume that (and that may 
| not be true in
| Ada 2005 anyway). Even if the type was not frozen, we'd still 
| want this to
| be illegal.
| 
Thank you Randy for your analysis. 

| Looks like Ada-Comment material to me.
Should I just send an informal mail, like the one I posted on cla?
Maybe with the underlying problem that lead to this code?

-- 
Lionel Draghi