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,fb4dd933ef563a8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-06 16:27:53 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: When/Why can a compiler reject an operator but accept a name?
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wccwus8mo93.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 23:26:48 GMT
References: <3D25D271.ACE6DAC8@despammed.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26914
Date: 2002-07-06T23:26:48+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> writes:

> In package G I have:
> 
>     type List_Type is array (Natural range <>) of Item;
> 
>     type Order is access function (Left, Right : in Item) return
> Boolean;
> 
>     procedure Sort (List : in out List_Type; Sequence : in Order);
>     
> 
> In procedure P I had:
> 
>     package I is new G (Item);
> 
>     function "<" (Left, Right : in Item) return Boolean is
> 
>     .....
>     
>     I.Sort (List => List, Sequence => "<"'Access);
> 
>     
> Compiler rejected it, saying:
> 
>    "<" has no definition that matches function (Left, Right : in Item)
> return Boolean [RM_95 3.10.2(32)]
>    
> I replaced "<" with Ord_Check (no other changes), and
> the compiler accepted it.

Sounds like a compiler bug, although I can't be sure without seeing all
the code (e.g., you didn't show the code for Ord_Check).

> Does using an operator instead of a name make the
> function Intrinsic?

No.

> If not, there is no support for rejection in 3.10.2(32)
> Is there any reason elsewhere in the RM to justify this
> odd behavior?
> 
> (Certainly either way, the message could be improved!)

True.  Show us a complete example.

- Bob