Re: Basic questions about wordings in “Interfacing Pragmas”

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:07:53 +0100, Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> a  
écrit:
>> In notes at the bottom> 46 5  The local_name in an interfacing pragma  
>> can denote more
>> > than one entity in the case of overloading. Such a pragma
>> > applies to all of the denoted entities.
>>
>> Why not the same with types derived from a type with an interfacing  
>> pragma
>> ?
>
> Types can't be overloaded.  Since you can declare more than one
> subprogram with the same name, the purpose of this note is to describe
> what happens if you use that name in one of these pragmas, in that
> case.  There's no need for a similar rule about types.

Oops, I was misunderstood here.

Say T11 is tagged type. A pragma specify some convention for T11.  
According to this RM page, then a type T12 extending (or not) T11, will  
hold the same convention too.

Say T21 is a “classic” scalar type. A pragma specify some convention for  
T21. According to this RM page, then a `type T22 is new T21;` will not  
hold the same convention, because it is not denoted by the same same any  
more, and it is not tagged.

I am not feeling fine with this: T12 will keep the convention, while T22  
won't. T22 should too.

Similarly: formally (no compiler specific answer please), what about  
`subtype T23 is T21;`. Not denoted by the same name too, so too not  
warranted to still hold the convention specified for T21 ? If so, this is  
another reason for me to not feeling OK.

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.”  [Epigrams on  
Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [Idem]