----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1@dont-email.me> c74d9ff7
@REPLY:
<99e103fa-53c3-43b0-8a4f-686ca10424cdn@googlegroups.com> 86cbb7ca
@REPLYADDR G.B. <bauhaus@notmyhomepage.invalid>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 G.B.
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 1@dont-email.me>
@RFC-References:
<99e103fa-53c3-43b0-8a4f-686ca10424cdn@googlegroups.com>
@RFC-Reply-To: nonlegitur@notmyhomepage.de
@TZUTC: 0200
@PID: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X
10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 21.09.23 21:29, Simon Belmont wrote:
> is it really illegal to rename an object as it`s classwide
parent? gnat claims so. Similar results using a type extension as a generic
formal "in out" object of classwide type.
>
> declare
> type P is interface;
> type C is new P with null record;
>
> o : C;
> r : P`Class renames o; --error
> begin
> null;
> end;
>
> expected type "P`Class" defined at line
> found type "C" defined at line
O does not denote an object of a class-wide type,
I think. However, P`Class (o) does, so that renaming
that would make r be of its declared type P`Class.
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441