Re: "&" for array versus "&" for Strings

["David C. Hoos" <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergey Koshcheyev" <serko84@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: "&" for array versus "&" for Strings


>
> "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1034079721.26410.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> >
> > With gnat-3.14p and qualification it still fails, so it would appear
that
> this
> > is a "bug" fixed in 3.16w.  Clearly, from a language standpoint, it is
> > necessary to disambiguate the & operator in the call to Print_Names, and
> > qualification of its operands does just that.
> > <snip>
>
> How does it disambiguate the "&"? I would understand if it selected
function
> "&" (Left, Right : String) return String, but from what you say, it seems
> like it made the compiler select function "&" (Left, Right : "String (1 ..
> 6)") return Name_Array.
That's correct.  Without the qualification of its operands, the compiler
selects
"&" (Left, Right : String) return String, which (correctly) returns an error
in
3.16w, but is erroneously accepted by 3.14p.
With  the qualification of its operands, the compiler selects
"&" (Left, Right : String (1 .. 6)) return Name_Array.