comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Subject: Re: Convention aspect stricter than before? - GNAT Community 2020
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:35:22 +0200
Date: 2020-06-03T20:35:22+02:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <rb8qha$r3k$1@dont-email.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b3b95127-bee2-47e2-aa9d-8d0a66668c0b@googlegroups.com>

On 6/3/20 7:59 PM, Jesper Quorning wrote:
> 
> CE2020 accepts the specification when pragma Convention is used as for Record_2.
> 
> Is there an Ada 2012 way to solve this without moving Private_Record out of private part or using a pragma?

The aspect and pragma are supposed to be equivalent, so this looks like a 
compiler error.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
Monty Python & the Holy Grail
67

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-03 18:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-03 17:59 Convention aspect stricter than before? - GNAT Community 2020 Jesper Quorning
2020-06-03 18:35 ` Jeffrey R. Carter [this message]
2020-08-04 13:31 ` Fabien Chouteau
2020-08-08  3:29   ` Randy Brukardt
2020-08-08  9:46     ` Luke A. Guest
2020-08-10  0:15       ` Randy Brukardt
2020-08-10  6:35         ` Luke A. Guest
2020-08-10  9:15           ` Simon Wright
2020-08-10 14:53             ` Luke A. Guest
2020-08-11  7:18           ` Jesper Quorning
2020-08-11  7:34             ` Luke A. Guest
2020-08-11 16:23               ` Jesper Quorning
2020-08-11 19:23                 ` Luke A. Guest
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox