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,
	WEIRD_PORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8ceb83dbf250e264
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with instantiating generic procedure
Date: 1999/07/18
Message-ID: <w3L8TwW0#GA.154@newstoo.hiwaay.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 502520473
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7mqfcq$9og$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-07-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Markus Kuhn <mgk25@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7mqfcq$9og$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Sorry, but after searching through the RM for almost an hour, I still
> haven't figured out what I do wrong here and how I should fix this.
> I declare in a package spec a procedure A and I want to implement the
> procedure body of A by instantiating a generic procedure G. The following
> is the shortest possible program that reproduces my problem:
>
> -- bug.ads --
> package Bug is
>
>    procedure A;
>
> end Bug;
> -- bug.adb --
> package body Bug is
>
>    generic
>    procedure G;
>
>    procedure G is
>    begin
>       null;
>    end G;
>
>    procedure A is new G;
>
> end Bug;
> -------------
>
> GNAT 3.11p on Linux insists on the following error message:
>
> bug.adb:1:14: missing body for "A" declared at bug.ads:3
> bug.adb:11:14: "A" conflicts with declaration at bug.ads:3
>
> What is wrong with simply implementing a procedure declared
> in the spec file in the body file by instantiating it from
> a generic procedure of the exact same signature? Both A and G
> have no parameters, so how can there be a conflict?
>
> It would be nice if GNAT wrote out explicitely the two conflicting
> sides, each time it uses the word "conflict" in an error message.
>
> Any idea what is wrong here?

What you have in the instantiation is the declaration of a spec for
procedure A which is a homograph of the declaration in bug.ads --
and, therefore, illegal, conflicting.