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,e12ee9b0877029b2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-10 18:01:42 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Disagreement between GNAT and Cohen?
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wcczny2tyrm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:00:45 GMT
References: <3D05456D.7050001@golter.demon.co.uk>
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:25716
Date: 2002-06-11T01:00:45+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Andrew Hoddinott <andrew@golter.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Am I missing something obvious here? Or is Cohen wrong? Or GNAT? Is
> there something in the RM that supports GNAT's claim that "subprogram
> used in renaming_as_body cannot be intrinsic"?

See 8.5.4(5/1).

The AARM explains the reason for the rule: basically to make (efficient)
implementation easier.

- Bob