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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,436e4ce138981b82 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-08 15:38:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!nnx.oleane.net!oleane!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Amado Alves Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: abstract sub programs overriding Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:42:01 +0000 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <5f59677c.0403021101.4ac263d0@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1078789055 71645 212.85.156.195 (8 Mar 2004 23:37:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:37:35 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2004 23:37:20.0736 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CD9C600:01C40566] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6171 Date: 2004-03-08T23:42:01+00:00 > > I'm surprised it compiles at all given that Generate is a private > > operation (and therefore not available outside its declarative region). > > It is perfectly fine for dispatching > calls to dispatch to subprograms that are not visible and couldn't be > called directly. See 3.9.2(20), 7.3.1(6). Yes. Even with a "note" for us laymen 3.9.2(21). I stand corrected--again. (I can see clearly now how and why I erred. A "different rule" for tagged types. Not sure I like it.)