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: 103376,74a56083ffbe573d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Zoo question Date: 1996/08/14 Message-ID: <3211C462.19D9@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 174171298 references: <320F16B6.6944@lmtas.lmco.com> <3210A142.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-08-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > > OK. I'll bite. It looks like it would probably perform as advertised, with > no optimization set on the compiler. The following constraint check code - > > > > > Get_Next_Animal: begin -- look carefully at this code! > > Next_Animal := Animal_ID'Succ(Next_Animal); > > exception > > when others => Next_Animal := Animal_ID'First; > > end Get_Next_Animal; > > isn't guaranteed to work (assuming "work" means raise an execption within > this block when Animal_ID'Succ(Next_Animal) > Animal_ID'last). You're getting warm (and doing much better than I did on my first look)! Now, the question is: Even though the call to Animal_ID'Succ(Animal_ID'Last) won't cause an exception (which I find very counter-intuitive, by the way), will an exception be raised on the line that contains that call? (You might want to read that statement more than once... :) -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"