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: 24 Sep 93 17:50:00 GMT
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
Message-ID: <24SEP199312502857@bambam.gsfc.nasa.gov>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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