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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,74e0716429aeb760
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-10 10:12:19 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.radix.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!xyzzy!nntp
From: Jeffrey Carter <jeffrey.carter@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: simple question just to be sure
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e246420.msc.az.boeing.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <3BC478E3.C269C992@boeing.com>
Sender: nntp@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: The Boeing Company
X-Accept-Language: en
References: <E472188161D5D311B08700105AF4CAAA04C99F35@kuumex03.barco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:35:47 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD Boeing Kit  (WinNT; U)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14179
Date: 2001-10-10T16:35:47+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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