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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,772ae8afc5db35f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Can't export object of private type
Date: 1999/03/05
Message-ID: <wcczp5s6joa.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 451584639
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <7bk6gh$6d9$2@plug.news.pipex.net> <F826Kw.3C3@syd.csa.com.au>
 <7bmgfd$2d3$3@plug.news.pipex.net>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-03-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes:

> Well, I've worked out why GNAT doesn't complain about the inclusion of:
> 
>    function Solo_T return Access_Class_T_Type is abstract;
> 
> It's perfectly legal Ada (q.v. RM95 3.9.3)!  (Surprise surprise :-)
> 
> However, the next question is: _why_ is it perfectly legal Ada?  It's (very
> nearly) gibberish.  At best, it simply announces that if we derive a type
> from Access_Class_T_Type, we might (if we fancy) be declaring a function
> which matches (and therefore overrides) the above.  It never enforces any
> kind of promise.  At worst, it's a confusing waste of space.  Weird.  Who
> wrote this funny language?  (Own up ;-)

The language isn't usually in the business of forbidding useless things.
Error-prone things, yes.

I think AARM-3.9.3(3.d) addresses the above.

- Bob
-- 
Change robert to bob to get my real email address.  Sorry.