Re: [Liberty-eiffel] I dont agree with that error

[José Bollo]

Le Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:01:24 +0100,
Cyril ADRIAN <address@hidden> a écrit :

> Hi José,
> 
> 2013/12/11 José Bollo <address@hidden>
> 
> > It works very well with SmartEiffel but adler doesn't want to
> > compile it. It argues that at least one conforming path must exist.
> > Why? I can't agree. From ECMA page 94, the validity rule VMRC also
> > disagree.
> >
> > So Why? What is the good reason that I don't know?
> >
> 
> You are right, that is strange. It comes from the never-released
> SmartEiffel 2.4 codebase
> (r8513<https://gforge.inria.fr/scm/viewvc.php/trunk/tools/kernel/feature_accumulator.e?root=smarteiffel&view=diff&r1=8512&r2=8513>),
> the log is "Checking for situations that can lead to ambiguous feature
> calls".

That's good it means that I will have satisfaction. When?
 
> The problem is a technical one and the solution is not good because it
> forbids valid use cases and does not fix actual problem (see
> TEST_INHERIT2).

Yes I see...

Thanks.
Regard

> 
> Cheers
>