From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Convention Question related to access types
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 00:11:08 -0500
Date: 2019-06-08T00:11:08-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <qdfg1d$6q4$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 15a1e593-42f5-4f80-a84c-c5b6d3f1ef7b@googlegroups.com
"Jere" <jhb.chat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15a1e593-42f5-4f80-a84c-c5b6d3f1ef7b@googlegroups.com...
> The RM in section B.1 talks about Ada Standard requirements for
> convention compatibility. In it however it doesn't mention anything
> about private types, full views, etc.
Conventions apply to *entities*. See 6.3.1(2/1): "a convention can be
specified for an entity". Views like a partial view is *of* an entity, not
an entity itself. Thus there is only a single convention for a type. Where
it is specified doesn't matter outside of Legality Rules. Thus the rules in
B.1 only need to talk about types, not views.
I just had this argument about "entity" with other ARG members vis-a-vis a
different topic (I lost :-), so I'm very certain this is correct.
Randy.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-08 5:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-07 1:51 Convention Question related to access types Jere
2019-06-08 5:11 ` Randy Brukardt [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox