CVS difference for ais/ai-00149.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00149.txt

--- ais/ai-00149.txt	2000/10/05 02:47:30	1.3
+++ ais/ai-00149.txt	2000/12/07 03:49:44	1.4
@@ -927,114 +927,3 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
-From: srolsen@COLLINS.ROCKWELL.COM
-Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:17 PM
-
-Description:
-
-In procedure P, Q'Address could presumably refer to procedure Try_Ap.Q,
-package Try_Ap_P1.Q, or the two Try_Ap_P2.Q procedures.
-
-Here is the sample code:
-
-   package Try_Ap_P1 is
-   end Try_Ap_P1;
-
-   package Try_Ap_P1.Q is
-     procedure Q;
-   end Try_Ap_P1.Q;
-
-   package Try_Ap_P2 is
-     procedure Q (A : Integer);
-     procedure Q (A : Float);
-   end Try_Ap_P2;
-
-   with System;
-   with Try_Ap_P1.Q;
-   with Try_Ap_P2;
-
-   package body Try_Ap is
-
-     use Try_Ap_P1;
-     use Try_Ap_P2;
-
-     procedure Q is
-     begin
-       null;
-     end Q;
-
-     procedure P is
-       A : System.Address;
-     begin
-       A := Q'Address;
-     end P;
-
-   end Try_Ap;
-
-Desired response:
-
-Which address will be assigned to A, the address of Try_Ap.Q, Try_Ap_P1.Q,
-or one of the Q procedures in Try_Ap_P2?
-
-What is the "rule" for selecting the procedure?
-
-Is it correct to issue an error message or warning when this code is
-compiled?  Please explain your answer.  Thank you.
-
-****************************************************************
-
-From: Tucker Taft
-Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 10:12 PM
-
-> Which address will be assigned to A, the address of Try_Ap.Q, Try_Ap_P1.Q,
-> or one of the Q procedures in Try_Ap_P2?
-
-Try_Ap.Q.
-
-> What is the "rule" for selecting the procedure?
-
-The other Q's are not use-visible, because one is non-overloadable
-and one is overloadable, so they "cancel out" as specified in 8.4(11).
-
-> Is it correct to issue an error message or warning when this code is
-> compiled?
-
-It is not correct to issue an error message.  There are no rules about
-issuing warnings -- compilers can pretty much do whatever they
-want when it comes to warnings.
-
-> Please explain your answer.  Thank you.
-
-There is only one Q visible, so there is no ambiguity.  This is
-because the multiple potentially use-visible Q's are not all overloadable,
-so none of them are actually use-visible.
-
-****************************************************************
-
-From: Robert Dewar
-Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 10:09 PM
-
-I agree with Tuck, this is a clear case.
-
-****************************************************************
-
-From: Robert A Duff
-Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2000 2:28 PM
-
-> There is only one Q visible, so there is no ambiguity.  This is
-> because the multiple potentially use-visible Q's are not all overloadable,
-> so none of them are actually use-visible.
-
-Right, but one might wonder what Q'Address does when Q *is* overloaded
-(eg if the package were removed from the example).
-The answer is that the normal overload resolution rules apply: it's
-ambiguous.  See 8.6.
-
-****************************************************************
-
-From: Erhard Ploedereder
-Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 3:10 AM
-
-I agree. (And this is not worth an AI, since it is clear from the RM.)
-
-****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent