Christoph & Ursula Grein wrote:
>
> Stanley Allen schrieb:
> ...
> > --  Fancy is derived from an unconstrained type, in this view
> > --
> > --  COMPILER A complains, referencing RM95 3.7(13)
> > --  COMPILER B accepts, here is a comment from vendor B:
> > --
> > --  "COMPILER B is correct here, the declaration of derived
> > --  type Fancy in your example is legal.  The full type is
> > --  derived from a constrained view of the parent type and
> > --  doesn't violate the stated rule."
> > --
> > --  COMPILER B reports an error if Fancy is not a private type,
> > --  but is declared instead as this:

I responded to this in comp.lang.ada.  Basically, Compiler B is
correct.  3.7(13) doesn't apply to private extensions.  It applies
only to types defined by a derived_type_definition, which includes
"normal" derived types and record extensions, but not private extensions.

>
> OK, I'm no language lawyer, but my two ? cents:
>
> > --
> > --  type Fancy (N : access Integer) is new Basic with null record;
> > --
>
> This declaration is illegal in any case because there is no private part
> which could provide values for the unknown discriminants.

I think you missed on this one.  The declaration is legal.  See 7.3(8,9).

> ...
> As I said, my 2 ? (Euro) cents.
> ...
> Christoph Grein
> Mitglied von Ada-Deutschland
> Member of Ada Germany
> http:/www.ada-deutschland.de
>
> http://home.T-Online.de/home/Christ-Usch.Grein
> eMail: [log in to unmask]

--
-Tucker Taft   [log in to unmask]   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions  (www.averstar.com/tools)
AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.)   Burlington, MA  USA