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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6bf481efd29cf77b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 12:30:10 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!sn-xit-04!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Behavior of Stream Attributes On Access Types.
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:30:39 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <ugv2hveujke49a@corp.supernews.com>
References: <ae2v7f$r12$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <4519e058.0206110547.526d2369@posting.google.com>
 <ae51cc$9ok$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <ae51vr$ar4$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <mailman.1023891618.16755.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <ae7oo4$7ob$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <x7vhek5sokk.fsf@pushface.org>
 <aede2f$4d9$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <x7v3cvoa8up.fsf@pushface.org>
 <ugnu54b8nr87aa@corp.supernews.com> <aekrt1$a1$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26290
Date: 2002-06-18T14:30:39-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marin David Condic wrote in message ...
>O.K. *THAT* is the part I was looking for. (I don't think this was in
your
>original answer.) Type A uses the default 'Write. Type B descending
from A
>overrides 'Write to do its own thing. Type C descending from B and
adding
>new fields NEED NOT override 'Write - it will first call type B's
'Write and
>then will call 'Write for any new fields added. At least that is the
>behavior that *SHOULD* be there, correct? (If it doesn't call the
'Write for
>the additional fields, you'd be stuck having to override it.)


Right, that is what the behavior SHOULD be. But if the compiler doesn't
implement the TC and hasn't been tested against the latest ACATS test
suite, then it very well may not. The tests for this were added to the
ACATS in December, and don't become required until July 1st, so even a
recently tested compiler could get this wrong and still pass conformity
assessment.

Of course, an Ada 0y compiler will have to get this right -- but you may
not want to wait that long. :-)

          Randy.