* Abstract procedures in protected types
@ 1999-08-07 0:00 Aidan Skinner
1999-08-09 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Aidan Skinner @ 1999-08-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Is it possible to have an abstract procedure inside a protected
object? I have some of these in Libra.Data_Structures, and they
compile without warning or error with GNAT 3.11p.
However, ObjectAda under Windows refuses to compile them, citing
LRM:9.4(5). This would appear to be correct, since it states:
protected_operation_declaration ::= subprogram_declaration
| entry_declaration
| representation_clause
and not does not mention abstract_subprogram_declaration (LRM:6.1(2)).
I think GNAT is at fault here, but would like to be sure before
submitting a bug report.
- Aidan
--
Gimme money, gimme sex, gimme UNIX and root access.
http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/aidan/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: Abstract procedures in protected types
1999-08-07 0:00 Abstract procedures in protected types Aidan Skinner
@ 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-08-09 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tucker Taft @ 1999-08-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Aidan Skinner wrote:
>
> Is it possible to have an abstract procedure inside a protected
> object? I have some of these in Libra.Data_Structures, and they
> compile without warning or error with GNAT 3.11p.
>
> However, ObjectAda under Windows refuses to compile them, citing
> LRM:9.4(5). This would appear to be correct, since it states:
>
> protected_operation_declaration ::= subprogram_declaration
> | entry_declaration
> | representation_clause
>
> and not does not mention abstract_subprogram_declaration (LRM:6.1(2)).
>
> I think GNAT is at fault here, but would like to be sure before
> submitting a bug report.
This appears to be a GNAT bug. As you point out above, abstract
subprogram declarations are not permitted inside a protected definition.
I am curious what you expected the abstract procedure declaration to
accomplish, by the way...
>
> - Aidan
--
-Tucker Taft stt@averstar.com http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions (www.averstar.com/tools)
AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.) Burlington, MA USA
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Abstract procedures in protected types
1999-08-09 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
@ 1999-08-09 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Aidan Skinner @ 1999-08-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:22:20 GMT, Tucker Taft <stt@averstar.com> wrote:
>I am curious what you expected the abstract procedure declaration to
>accomplish, by the way...
some of them were artifacts from a kill and yank that I'd done to
produce a protected interface to a class. The rest were there on a
misunderstanding I'd obviously gotten into about dispatching (that
makes absoloutely no sense to me now).
Basically I wanted a class-wide protected interface (taking an access
'Class paramater) that would dispatch to the appropriate
implementations.
- Aidan (who just loves these "doh! how on earth did I think *that*?" moments)
--
Gimme money, gimme sex, gimme UNIX and root access.
http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/aidan/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-08-09 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-08-07 0:00 Abstract procedures in protected types Aidan Skinner
1999-08-09 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-08-09 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox