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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e258612d447226e4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-20 03:39:08 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.mathworks.com!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Range Check Query
Date: 19 Nov 1994 11:58:58 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3alasi$9eg@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <9411181527.AA08827@eurocontrol.de>
 <EACHUS.94Nov18121126@spectre.mitre.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-11-19T11:58:58-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"If the compiler is smart enough [to recognize that a comparison of a value
of limited range with a constant is always False], it should probably warn .."

First, that's not an easy check to do, it certainly doesn't fall out free,
because it requires the generalized notion of the subtype of a result, where
in the language we are only ever interested in the base type for operands
of an operator. Certainly it could be done with a special check.

Second, are you really *sure* that you want this warning. Yes I know you
can suppress warnings, but the trick is to keep warnings useful so that
people don't need to suppress them in normal cases.

I an very dubious that this is a desirable approach

Robert Eachus' analysis of the original question is certainly quite
correct, there is no basis to expect range constraint to be raised
in either situation.