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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ADDR_WS
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 22 Sep 93 13:36:56 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!firth@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robert Fi
rth)
Subject: Re: Bug in AdaEd???
Message-ID: <1993Sep22.093656.20606@sei.cmu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <EACHUS.93Sep21192111@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre.org (R
obert I. Eachus) writes:

>   But there are nasty examples where you need to rely on
>CONSTRAINT_ERROR being raised.  The worst example we came up with was:
>
>   declare
>     subtype My_Int is Integer range 1..10_000;
>     X,Y: My_Int;
>     Junk: My_Int;
>   begin
>     Read(X);
>     Read(Y);
>     Junk := X*Y;
>     if Junk > 10_000 then Do_Something; end if;
>   exception
>     when others => Do_Something;
>   end;

Indeed a nasty example!  However, isn't the solution fairly simple:
eliminate the variable Junk and rewrite the test as

	if X*Y > 10_000 then ...

As far as I can see, that has to work regardless of whether X*Y
overflows.  Moreover, isn't it the obvious way to write the code?