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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Gripe about Ada, rep specs that won't. Date: 1996/03/22 Message-ID: <3152A517.1663@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 143742858 references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <3146E324.5C1E@lfwc.lockheed.com> <4i98gg$8n1@solutions.solon.com> <4ia41k$e04@solutions.solon.com> <4ik5ip$cl6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <4iq71v$cvr@news4.digex.net> <4isol4$dm7@ra.nrl.navy.mil> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > Of course you should get a constraint error if you access a field n the > variant that does not correspond to the current discriminant value. If > you find a case where this is not so, it is a bug, a significant one! > Report it as such. Here's a case: pragma Suppress(Discriminant_Check) Sorry, couldn't resist :)