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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!wayback!arny
From: arny@wayback.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: 'Base and Staticness
Message-ID: <1132@wayback.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Apr-87 08:45:48 EST
Article-I.D.: wayback.1132
Posted: Mon Apr 13 08:45:48 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Apr-87 00:28:25 EST
References: <12293281394.11.MENDAL@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <12293281394.11.MENDAL@Sierra.Stanford.EDU>, Mendal@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU (Geoff Mendal) writes:
> Is the following package specification semantically valid?
> 
>   package Static_Test is
>     subtype Non_Static is Integer range Integer (1) .. 100;
> 
>     type Must_Be_Static is range Non_Static'Base'First .. 10;
>   end Static_Test;
> 
> Read the ARM, 3.3.3(8..9) and 4.9(1..2, 8, 11).


   Forgive me if I missed something, but after checking the LRM sections you
mentioned above (especially 4.9:11), I believe the subtype "Non_Static" is
indeed static.  This subtype is formed by imposing a static range constraint
(1..100) on a scalar base type (Integer).  (Note that enclosing the numeral 1
in parentheses does not make it non-static according to 4.9:2,4,10).
   It follows that the declaration of "Must_Be_Static" is then valid according
to 4.9:8.

   Comments?

Arny B. Engelson   {ihnp4|bonnie|clyde}!wayback!arny   (201) 386-4816
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany, N.J.