From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 1 Jul 91 15:21:34 GMT
From: voder!wlbr!lonex.radc.af.mil!blackbird.afit.af.mil!dlindsle@ucbvax.Berkel
ey.EDU  (David T. Lindsley)
Subject: Re: What should this do?
Message-ID: <1991Jul01.152134.16085@afit.af.mil>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

rharwood@east.pima.edu writes:

>In article <1991Jun28.193513.14271@afit.af.mil>, dlindsle@afit.af.mil (David T
.
>Lindsley) writes:


>procedure test_100 is

>             subtype INDEX is natural range 0..100;
>             type DYN_STRING (SIZE : INDEX := 0) is private; 

>           private
>                 type DYN_STRING (size : index := 0) is
>                    record
>                        DATA : string (1..size);
>                    end record;

And this version does compile, even here.  Sorry about that, folks.  Our
AC is broken (it's 85F/30C-plus in here), and I'd been messing with that
package all day.
What I couldn't get to compile/run was:


  subtype Index is natural; -- range 0..100;
  type Dyn_String (Size : Index := 0) is record
    Data : string (1..Size);
  end record;

  S: Dyn_String;


But this still leaves me with a question.  Why does this work with a
constrained subtype, but not with an unconstrained one?  Either results
in the elaboration of a null array -- why is this a problem with an
unconstrained subtype?  (Especially since NATURAL is a discrete (sub)type
anyway...

-- 
Dave Lindsley	#24601#			OPINIONS.  MINE.  (Nobody tells me
dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil		  anything anyway, so I can't possibly 
    ?? lamroN eb yhW ??			  be anybody's mouthpiece...)