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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.internetdienste.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 10:11:29 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Variant record limitation - what's a better solution?
References: <0606a658-9816-4611-84dd-4f999bf6018e@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <0606a658-9816-4611-84dd-4f999bf6018e@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <51d3dcaf$0$6582$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 03 Jul 2013 10:11:27 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: cec1db89.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=PKUl46aTE9g>jlK2>IgHGdMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkD3VD?Y_Xj[iPCY\c7>ejVhA?6dnHRBSglEWc[;0Kf]3k
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16076
Date: 2013-07-03T10:11:27+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 03.07.13 09:52, Peter Brooks wrote:
> I see that I can't do what I'd like to with a variant record. What should I be doing?
>
> Here's an example:
>
> type
> my_object(X : size_type) is
>         record
>                name : string(1..80);
>                case X is
>                   when small => Y : small_type; -- line 20
>                   when medium => Y : medium_type; -- line 21
>                   when large => Y: large_type; -- line 22
>                end case;
>         end record;
>
> The errors are:
> line 21  'Y' conflicts with declaration at line 20
> line 22 'Y' conflicts with declaration at line 21
>
> I was hoping to have a different type depending on the case, but this doesn't seem allowed. What would achieve this?
>

Different types are o.K., the same name for different
components isn't. Three overloaded accessor functions Y
each returning one of the components will work.