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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ed596f1f077b44e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Samuel Tardieu <sam@inf.enst.fr>
Subject: Re: Primitive Operations Question
Date: 1996/07/31
Message-ID: <qw6k9vkvgdb.fsf@gargantua.enst.fr>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171225615
sender: tardieu@gargantua.enst.fr
references: <31FE812C.7B3D@ix.netcom.com>
to: cintech@ix.netcom.com
content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
organization: TELECOM Paris
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-31T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>>>>> "Vance" == Vance Christiaanse <cintech@ix.netcom.com> writes:

Vance> Hello! Much to my dismay, the following procedure compiles on
Vance> the WebAda (GNAT 3.04) compiler.  By my reading of RM95 3.2.3,
Vance> A and B don't fit any part of the definition of primitive
Vance> operations, so I don't see why iheritance seems to be
Vance> occurring.  When I replace all three types with a hierarchy of
Vance> tagged types, both calls fail to compile, as I would have
Vance> expected.

The 6th paragraph on the section you cite (3.2.3):

  "For a specific type declared immediately within a
   package_specification, any subprograms (in addition to the
   enumeration literals) that are explicitly declared immediately
   within the same package_specification and that operate on the type;
  "

The only thing that bugs me is that "package_specification" is not
(from RM7.1(3)) supposed to match any declarative part.

  Sam
-- 
"La cervelle des petits enfants, ca doit avoir comme un petit gout de noisette"
                                                       Charles Baudelaire