From: "Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Subject: Re: Q: SPARK visibility rules and inherit annotations.
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 17:58:24 +0200
Date: 2010-05-20T17:58:24+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <op.vc0hbmfnxmjfy8@garhos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 85kj72Fhu9U1@mid.individual.net
Le Thu, 20 May 2010 13:03:01 +0200, Gavino <invalid@invalid.invalid> a
écrit:
>> While sometime, I would like to better understand some choices, like the
>> one I've meet, which is that it does not accept nested package
>> specifications, or, more important, why it don't wants "type ... is new
>> ...;". If I could understand the rational behind this latter
>> restriction,
>> this could perhaps help me to redesign.
>
> It's to avoid overloading, especially the implicit declaration of
> user-defined subprograms.
While this only occurs with tagged types, and SPARK 95 has support for
tagged type. Or may be I'm wrong somewhere, or else, I did not understood
what you were to say.
--
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-20 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-19 15:04 Q: SPARK visibility rules and inherit annotations Peter C. Chapin
2010-05-19 15:54 ` Phil Thornley
2010-05-19 21:29 ` Peter C. Chapin
2010-05-20 1:47 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-05-20 11:03 ` Gavino
2010-05-20 15:58 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) [this message]
2010-05-21 10:42 ` Gavino
2010-05-25 20:58 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-05-19 16:22 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
2010-05-19 20:41 ` Gavino
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox