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,d402e2c741db0d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-09 15:08:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Language lawyer question: Equality on 'Access attributes Date: 09 Jan 2004 18:08:18 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <4LKdnRRNyv6AlmCiRVn-ig@comcast.com> <6bSdnYBKy_diPGCi4p2dnA@gbronline.com> <5a6dnSDERdpetGOi4p2dnA@gbronline.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1073689698 32702 192.74.137.185 (9 Jan 2004 23:08:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:08:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4279 Date: 2004-01-09T18:08:18-05:00 List-Id: Ze Administrator writes: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > No, I'm not. If there are a dozen named access-to-integer types > > directly visible at that point (which would mean that their "=" > > operators are also visible), the RM rules clearly say that "=" would > > be ambiguous. I think I briefly touched on that situation in my > > original post. The question is, what should happen when only one such > > "=" operator is a possibility. > > Every construct that implies a type without naming it > effectively declares an anonymous type, right? No... I don't remember any such statement in the RM. (I *wrote* large parts of the RM, so I *might* know what I'm talking about. Or I might have forgotten what I wrote. ;-)) >...Can any > two constructs 'declare' the same anonymous type? No. But anonymous access types are declared by access definitions, not uses of 'Access. - Bob