From: haven.umd.edu!cs.umd.edu!skates.gsfc.nasa.gov!bambam.gsfc.nasa.gov!nbssal @uunet.uu.net (Stephe Leake)
Subject: Re: null unconstrained arrays vs generic formal types
Date: 24 Sep 93 17:50:00 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <24SEP199312502857@bambam.gsfc.nasa.gov> (raw)
In article <CDtunJ.Jt0@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker
Taft) writes...
>In article <23SEP199311043613@bambam.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> nbssal@bambam.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephe Leake) writes:
>
>>I've recently run across an problem with unconstrained arrays and generic
>>parameters, due to LRM 12.3.4(5).
>>
... complicated problem statement deleted; see original post ...
>>So, does Ada 9x fix this by relaxing LRM 12.3.4(5)? Does anyone have an
>>alternate solution?
>
... some of Tucker's response deleted ...
>Even simpler (and somewhat more general) than the above would be to just
>declare procedure Get as:
>
> ...
> procedure Get(Item : out Index_Array_Element_Type;
> Last : out Index_Subtype'Base);
>
>The advantage of this is that it works even if it so happens that
>Index_Subtype'First = Index_Subtype'Base'First. Hence, defining the
>subtype Last_Index_Subtype is probably more trouble than it is worth.
>
Thanks! That will do just fine. I guess I've finally hit the big time; I posted
a problem that Tucker Taft responded to!
>
>S. Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com
>Ada 9X Mapping/Revision Team
>Intermetrics, Inc.
>Cambridge, MA 02138
Stephen Leake NASA Goddard Robotics Lab
internet : nbssal@robots.gsfc.nasa.gov
next reply other threads:[~1993-09-24 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1993-09-24 17:50 Stephe Leake [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1993-09-24 17:56 null unconstrained arrays vs generic formal types Stephe Leake
1993-09-23 23:51 Robert I. Eachus
1993-09-23 22:04 Tucker Taft
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox