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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9ae5f4553aae9277
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Gene Ouye <geneo@acm.org>
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this syntax?
Date: 1996/12/15
Message-ID: <32B49811.4C8@acm.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204313414
references: <32A6FE0F.7902@lmtas.lmco.com> <587aul$hrd@zeus.orl.mmc.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Rational Software Corporation
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: geneo@acm.org
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
Date: 1996-12-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I've been away from CLA for a while, so I don't know if this
has already been answered, but John Gluth wanted to know why:

	Some_Limit : Constant := 1024;
	...
	for i in 1..(Some_Limit - 2) loop

wouldn't compile in Rational Apex.  I'm not sure which version
of Rational Apex is being used, but it compiles fine with Apex 
version 2.2.0 in an Ada 95 view.

In an Ada 83 view, the error message is:
"(Some_Limit - 2) must be a numeric literal, named number, or 
 attribute since both bounds of its enclosing range are of type
 universal integer and a conversion to INTEGER will only take 
 place in this case [RM_83 3.6.1(2)]"

This message is almost a direct quote from the 83 LRM.  The 
"(Some_Limit - 2)" is not a numeric literal, nor is it a named 
number, nor is it an attribute.  If it were, the conversion to 
Integer would take place.  This is similar to 
"for i in -5 .. 5 loop" which is illegal because -5 is not a 
numeric literal...

In other words, it's valid Ada 95 code, and it compiles fine 
as such.  It's invalid Adaa 83 code, thus it's rejected.

Gene Ouye <geneo@rational.com>