Re: simple question just to be sure

[Jeffrey Carter <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com>]

Rammeloo Stijn wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> According to me the following constructs are equivalent and are both
> perfectly legal ada in ada83 and ada95:
> 
>     Bad_Frame_Name : constant String (1 .. 4) := "Bad" & Ascii.Nul;
> 
>    A_Nul : constant Character:=  Ascii.Nul;
>    Bad_Frame_Name : constant String (1 .. 4) := "Bad" & A_Nul;
> 
> Why do I ask? We use a code analyses tool that stumbles over the first
> construct with the error message "Bad_Frame_Name Value length 5 does not
> match object length 4" but not over the second one. According to me this is
> clearly a bug in the code analyses tool. According to the vendor, this 'odd'
> behaviour would be caused by the fact that the first construct 'May not be
> "perfect" Ada' but the second is. I totaly disagree with this statement. Can
> some ada-guru out there confirm I'm right or, if not, why I'm wrong?

This appears to be an error in the analysis tool. Both expressions are
legal and equivalent. However,

Name : constant String := "Whatever" & ASCII.NUL;

is better for minimizing future errors when the software changes, and
should work around the analysis tool error as well.

-- 
Jeffrey Carter