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: 103376,4fb6ec6cd054de65
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-12 01:38:40 PST
From: "George Stevens" <george.stevens@baesystems.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <3c8cc63b$1@pull.gecm.com>
Subject: Re: constrained subtypes
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:39:29 -0000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: wv174493.wloovle.gmuwd.gecm.com
Message-ID: <3c8dcc9d$1@pull.gecm.com>
X-Trace: 12 Mar 2002 09:38:37 GMT, wv174493.wloovle.gmuwd.gecm.com
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!btnet-peer1!btnet-feed3!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!wv174493.wloovle.gmuwd.gecm.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21099
Date: 2002-03-12T09:39:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Problem seemed to be in using:

case (constrained_subtype)

rather than:

case constrained_subtype

Removing the brackets sorted the problem.  Not sure why this is a problem
for constrained subtypes, as the compilers cope fine for enums and (base)
integers.

Sorry I didn't put the original code in my post, but was away from my build
machine, so was relying on my memory.  Thanks for all reponses.


"George Stevens" <george.stevens@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:3c8cc63b$1@pull.gecm.com...
> We're trying to use subtypes of base integer, constraining them 1 .. 8
> (i.e. static values)
> When we use these types in a case statement, covering values 1 - 8, the
> Aonix Ada compiler (7.1.2) complains that we haven't defined "others".
> However, we shouldn't need to, as all cases are within the constrained
> limits.  I've looked at Programming in Ada 95 - Barnes (p106) which seems
to
> suggest that we're doing the right thing language-wise, so long as the
range
> limits are static types.
>
> Is this a compiler funny or an Ada funny?
>
>