Re: Strings initialised by literals

[James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

I agree completely. However, the specific question asked about the
lower bound for a string literal. This should fall into the no
"applicable index constraint" exception you mentioned below.
For that reason I said the lower bound will be 1.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA

Tucker Taft wrote:
> 
> James Rogers wrote:
> 
> > This is guaranteed by the language.
> >
> > The string type is defined as :
> >
> > type string is array(Positive range <>) of character;
> 
> Not all strings start at 1.  However, when there is no "applicable index
> constraint" provide by context, then the low bound is the lower bound of
> the index subtype, which in this case is Positive (and Positive'First =
> 1).
> See RM95 4.3(26).
> 
> > Jim Rogers
> > Colorado Springs, Colorado
> >
> > Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> > >
> > > I've a feeling this question came across this newsgroup recently, but
> > > I've been unable to find the thread.
> > >
> > > If I write
> > >
> > >       Sample : String := "example";
> > >
> > > Gnat tells me that Sample'First is 1. Is this guaranteed by the
> > > langauge, or does the compiler choose?
> > >
> > > -M-
> 
> -Tucker Taft  stt@avercom.net